Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive455

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:CLalgo (Result: Protected, 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diffs of the user's reverts in article Shady El Nahas:
 * 1)  (two months ago)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

The user is removing medals from the infoboxes of the two Canadian judoka, medals that appear in the infoboxes of most judoka articles. The user has deleted previous warning recieved, engaging in Ad hominem , and after (see times) warned by me, threatened to report me as an edit warrior. Please, stop this edit warrior before things escalate. CLalgo (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Pot meet kettle. You have blindly been reverting as well after receiving multiple warnings. The only revert after discussions started in two places and  (mind you, I started both discussions to stop this from a back and forth), was this revert, because it had factually incorrect information, which was pointed out to you on your talk page , yet you still went ahead and reverted the edit  without acknowlding the factually incorrect information, and added back the wrong info. You are the clear edit warrior here, blindly reverting edits to your preferred version without even attempting a discussion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You clearly have issues collaborating with other editors, as evidenced by your previous block in August 2021. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Friend, everyone can see the times you were warned in, the warning you deleted and the order of reversions. Meanwhile, here is a fresh revert by you, of another Canadian judoka's article: . CLalgo (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit was before a discussion started, keeping in mind you just reverted my edit again while a discussion is taking place. You have been warned multiple times, yet you continued your edit warring ways after the discussions started. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I know that WP:BRD is just an essay, but it's good advice. You've made bold edits. They've been reverted. You've asked for discussion at a project-wide level. I suggest you wait for that discussion to proceed—as there does not appear to be any standard across all sports currently—before continuing to make these edits. —C.Fred (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The other user made the bold edits, which I reverted. Which is exactly what is happening. As pointed above, my only revert after the discussion I started has been to fix factually incorrect information that is easily verifiable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why have you not been updating the references to go along with the corrected information? —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reference is already linked twice as external links on the article. If you scroll to results and click on Junior Pan American Championships 2016, its there. I don't think linking to the event page is a good reference at this time. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not following. The reference currently in the article says the competition was in Cordoba. Why are you changing away from what's in the cited source? —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The source in the infobox says Buenos Aires. The IJF is the governing body and takes precedence imo Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another source Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the same source. JudoBase is the IJF's database. CLalgo (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the start of this thread has reverted five of my edits on the article on question in under 24 hrs. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the parties seem to have such basic disagreements about facts, the page is fully protected. You will need to civilly discuss changes and reach consensus at the article talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I do want to emphasize that while in the case of François Gauthier-Drapeau the two main primary sources disagree on the location of the 2016 Pan American Junior Championships, the main issue was and still is Sportsfan 1234's blanket removal of medals from the various judoka infoboxes. CLalgo (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Ficaia reported by User:NikolaosFanaris (Result: Partial block for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Several users have attempted to discuss issues related to the page, but the user continued reverting others - resulting in more than 10 reverts in less than a few hours. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And what punishment do you suggest? I think anyone looking at the page history will see I've edited constructively and in good faith and tried to reach a compromise at the talk page. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ten reverts in a few hours? This is edit-warring as other users already pointed out. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This applies only to Lauren Boebert, where while Ficacia has not violated 3RR per se, their reverts have been disruptive enough to foul the discussion on the talk page (which they are still free to contribute to) which is not conducive to reaching consensus. Since Ficacia has also been editing other articles without any issues during this time period, I do not see a sitewide block as necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Sorry to be pedantic but Ficaia did indeed violate 3RR. Even when counting serial reviews as one collective revert, the following were made on Jule 3: 1, 2, 3, 4. Arguably, this is also a revert.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to err on the safe side and not invoke 3RR except where the exact same revert was made three times in 24 hours, so as to forestall argumentative unblock requests. You might be right about that one serial revert, and maybe the combined diffs would reflect it ... I just didn't feel like I had the time to select both of them and compare. I know 3RR is not that rigid. But the point to me is that "edit warring" is not synonymous with 3RR, and I felt it inarguably had occurred here (especially given the ongoing talk discussion), and that was a stronger ground for the block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I will agree with @EvergreenFir on this - it was a defacto 3RR without any ongoing discussion taking place in the talk page of Lauren Boebert. Instead, Ficaia presented this argument several times in several synopses to justify his reverts. I don't understand why this is not a violation. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @NikolaosFanaris I think the partial block is perfectly sufficient for this case. Daniel Case makes a good point about other concurrent constructive edits elsewhere on Wikipedia. The disruption has been stopped, which is the purpose of blocks.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

User:BNParibasguy reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

User:BNParibasguy and User:GoldenTaurus have been reverting to keep a polity in the successor section of Goguryeo deleted. Both have displayed many similarities including WP tag stacking in accusations, deleting warnings from their talk page while accusing others of vandalism and harassment, same one line statement or variation of "Tang did not succeed Goguryeo", avoidance of participating in the talk discussion except to repeat said one liner. BNP also requested page protection first instead of engaging in the talk discussion for some reason and has done so again now. Qiushufang (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Pot meet kettle, you violated the 3RR on 27th June 2022.


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * And again on 5th July 2022.


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * Despite being warned several times on WP:VAND WP:EW WP:NPA WP:HA  you continue to show persistent vandalism, edit warring, harrassment and personal attacks. I have requested WP:RPP to prevent the on going WP:VAND and WP:EW. --BNParibasguy (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I initiated calls once asking BNP what the logic was behind the reversion, and again to explain what they meant by vandalism. They never responded. GoldenTaurus made the statement Goguryeo was not succeeded by Tang. in the initial deletion, their only response to talk request was also Tang did not succeed Goguryeo., and now BNP has reverted with the same statement Tang did not suceeded Goguryeo. Their edit summaries and WP tags without any extra substantiation in recent history are also similar:, . Qiushufang (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, making 3 reverts to a page on the same 24 hour period is not itself a violation of 3RR. It takes 4 reverts to "violate" that rule, as it is worded that users "[...] must not perform more than three reverts [...]" GabberFlasted (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you also mind taking a look at Sockpuppet investigations/Traineek. User:GoldenTaurus came into Goguryeo again soon after User:BNParibasguy got into trouble and rv User:Esiymbro:. Their rv behavior and edit summaries are practically identical:, , , ,. Talk:,. Same argument as Traineek:,. Qiushufang (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

User:BradVesp reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Both editors blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1096615752 by Favre1fan93 (talk)  Makes reading easier and doesn't detract from content WP:COMMON"
 * 2)  "consistency"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1096614473 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"
 * 4)  "WP:COMMON"
 * 5)  "reformatted so Bret Dalton's characters are seperated and separate from Min-La Wen's; reads more logically from left to right.  Added links to pilot episode consistent with other characters first appearance"
 * 1)  "reformatted so Bret Dalton's characters are seperated and separate from Min-La Wen's; reads more logically from left to right.  Added links to pilot episode consistent with other characters first appearance"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Duplicate links and rowspans */ new section"

Comments:

User has violated 3RR, and the reverts continued after two user talk page warnings, one explanation in one of my reverts about BRD and the burden on the bold editor to start the discussion (along with WP:STATUSQUO), and another revert again after I went ahead and started the talk page discussion (again, trying to leave STATUSQUO while discussing). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * See talk page. BradVesp (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The changes make it easier for someone who is not a wikipedia editor to read the table. BradVesp (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is very much your opinion. Please respect WP:BRD — Czello 17:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Very clear-cut here. We do not settle discussions like this with edit wars. Favre1fan, you should have heeded  's warning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Aleenf1 (Result: blocked for 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 15:04, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096768162 by Czello (talk) RFC ongoing; cities always listed with states in US

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 13:16, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096750181 by Aleenf1 (talk) Cities are always listed with states.
 * 13:28, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096761187 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) undothank Tags: Undo Reverted
 * 13:32, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096761529 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk). INCORRECT.
 * 15:04, 6 July 2022‎ Undid revision 1096768162 by Czello (talk) RFC ongoing; cities always listed with states in US

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Unable to honour the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics Aleen f 1 14:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Dmargi has now reverted 5 different editors in a very short span of time - this needs to stop. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 week; previous history of edit warring blocks, crossed bright line 3RR rule, edit warring against multiple editors, edit warring against apparent consensus, edit warring after clear warnings to stop edit warring. Come on.  Last block was several years ago, which is why this is not longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Aniket Singh Bhadoria reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edit"
 * 2)  "Edit"
 * 3)  "Edit"
 * 4)  "Original edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (note this is a Level 4 warning after two separate Level 3 warnings)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Shantel VanSanten

Comments:

Edit warring warning can be found on their talk page. Not sure why the diff didn't show up in Twinkle. Amaury • 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: User also has a recent history of making some disruptive edits. Kpddg  (talk)  15:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The salient point here is the user in question started a Talk page discussion, that I responded to laying out my position (and pointing out the objectionable part of their edit), and then they simply ignored the Talk page discussion that they had started from then on, and never commented again and just repeated the same edit over and over again! I can't think of anything more disruptive than starting a discussion, and then ignoring it to keep reverting! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note also that the IP edits on June 30 at the article may be the same editor, though I don't know for sure. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Æñøï reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "RV vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1096799991 by Wolbo (talk) s"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1096795631 by Wolbo (talk) it is ludicrously unencyclopaedic. it is an embarrassment. If you think otherwise, you must not have looked at it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1096659084 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1096646249 by Fyunck(click) (talk) if there is unencyclopaedic shit like this in other articles, it should be removed from them. There is no justification for restoring such rubbish here."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1096577846 by Fyunck(click) (talk) WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines says otherwise"
 * 7)  "/* 2022 */ I don't think every single tournament needs mentioning, especially not in a badly-presented list riddled with grammar and style errors."
 * 1)  "/* 2022 */ I don't think every single tournament needs mentioning, especially not in a badly-presented list riddled with grammar and style errors."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Simona Halep."
 * 2)   "/* July 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple editors keep trying to stop this content removal.... so far to no avail. We have asked it be brought to talk, even though I doubt any editor would agree with this blanking. That also has not happened. This is a high profile page right now with Halep in the semifinals and this disruptive editing is something we don't need. Warnings and explanations on the personal talk page were ignored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Juan.h.gonzalez.1 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1096780734 by Zefr (talk) On the wikipedia article it is only stated that the analysis was performed in silico, in vivo and in vitro. No clinical infromation was mentiond. The pharmaceutical claims are quoted directly from the referenced authors"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1096769568 by Zefr (talk) Zefr is vandalizing this article erasing parts without discussion"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1096764709 by Zefr (talk) The source was erronously misunderstood as a low-quality journal for unknown reason"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1096683312 by KH-1 (talk)"
 * 5)  "I added an extra reference that mentions the existance of cannabis strains that produce large amounts of CBG"
 * 1)  "I added an extra reference that mentions the existance of cannabis strains that produce large amounts of CBG"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cannabigerol."
 * 2)   "/* July 2022 */ Reply"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Cannabigerol."
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cannabigerol."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* What a reliable source means */ WP:PRIMARY sources"
 * 2)   "/* What a reliable source means */ r"
 * 3)   "/* What a reliable source means */ r"

Comments:

User is repeatedly warring against two editors, with no consensus established on the article talk page and insufficient justification on the user's talk page. Zefr (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * To put this in context, Zafr wants this phrase removed because he/she believes that such claim requires clinical research published in high impact factor jounral.
 * "Some strains, however, produce large amounts of CBG and CBGA, while having very low quantities of other cannabinoids, like THC and CBD."
 * I presented a source (a citation of a review published in a journal in with an impact factor higher than 3) that mentions the existence of such strains, but the user considers such information as "unjustified, exaggerated and misleading". These are personal interpretations of the user which should have no relevance for the validity of the source. Since the user was left with no further arguments, he/she preferred harass me through this report. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No direct 3RR vio, but in continuously reverting others' edits to the article and restoring material clearly against policy while casting bad-faith aspersions on Zefr (this one is particularly rich), who has pointed out several good policy reasons why this source should not be in the article, gonzalez is clearly being tendentious and warrants a block. It's also worth noting that the account was created just days ago and seems to be an SPA. Granted he stopped editing a day ago; whether he resumes again after the block I don't know but the point needed to be made. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

4 users reported by User:171.66.135.95 (Result: Full protection for 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: See the history. There are 11 reverts by 4 users in the last 24 hours. It's 18 reverts in 3 days and approximately 30 reverts in the last week.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

4 users with a half-dozen reverts each. Clearly none of them know anything but the undo button and everyone needs to be stopped. 171.66.135.95 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes more sense to do this with multiple edit-warriors. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi dear Daniel Case,
 * Actually i warned the people in the Talk section of the bengal tiger website regarding these 2 users that delete informations, which just come from papers. The reason behind this is serious bias. Can you tell me how i can solve this? Maybe you could read the message i sent in the talk section and follow it in the 9th july to see it yourself. I have a good reputation in other websites (other languages). However if the users keep deleting the parts without any serious reason. Hope you can clear this problem for me and can give a serious warning to the 2 other users.
 * Kind regards,
 * YusufCatLover YusufCatLover (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The full protection is sort of a warning in and of itself (we usually don't deal with multiple reportees here). If it continues after the protection ends, I think AN/I would be a better place to deal with it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I would suggest you to open the talk section in the bengal tiger thread were i talked about this issue. All i did was originally adding a tiny bit of additional information. However two guys kept deleting those edits without any acceptable reason. I hope you can understand. YusufCatLover (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Semsûrî reported by User:178.218.98.228 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

User:47.227.95.73 is the same person as User:Semsûrî and is gaming the system by using an another IP. 178.218.98.228 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a sockpuppet that has been vandalizing Kurdish subjects for some time now through VPN. Semsûrî (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Denying is useless. 178.218.98.228 (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Reported user's edits qualify for a 3RR exemption for reverting a blocked user's edits. please report the sockpuppet next time rather than make so many reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Xyxx6587 reported by User:Zoglophie (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

Also in page Tai Tzu-ying, keeps ignoring talk page messages and edit summaries made by me when I reverted their edits and manually revert to their preferred version.. zoglophie 13:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Solidarityandfreedom reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added source and info"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */Evangelicals don’t have a Sacrament of Confirmation only Orthodox Christians and Catholics do. Campaigning with the support of evangelicals =/= being an Evangelical, Donald Trump is an example of this. Also this article uses tweets a sources for other statements but provides no source for this statement. Her own statements directly refute this.
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */Added information and source"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */Added information and citation on personal life."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mayra Flores."
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mayra Flores."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Religion is important to mention in personal life section */ Reply"

Comments:

This user doesn't appear to be able to edit without edit warring, whether it be adding erroneous, unsourced or incorrect information of varying degrees. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree they were heading in the direction of a block, but This edit following the talk page discussion seems to have stopped them; they've gone on to edit other articles since then. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

User:92.10.13.209 reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1096837089 by Binksternet (talk) Removed WP:BLP violation, I encourage you to read the BLP policy - which this info violates"
 * 2)  "Wikipedia is not a gossip column"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1096816863 by ZimZalaBim (talk) This is an obvious WP:BLP violaton. I am not going to seek consensus regardless of sourcing, considering the purpose of the info. If someone found sourced information of her social security number that would still be a BLP violation and not what Wikipedia is for. Passport + birth cert info is not Wikipedia appropriate and u know it. You'd delete it on any other article."
 * 4)  "This entire section and the ending of last quote is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and regardless of intention serves purely as tabloid journalism on something private - potentially violating the privacy of a living person WP:BLP - as a way of exoticising trans women. Either way, if Lear's trans, then she'd be closeted and this would be a big BLP vio - but she said she's cis constantly. Info about her birth certificate and passport is outrageously unacceptable"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Amanda Lear */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP has engaged in edit wars on numerous pages over the past week or so. Amanda Lear, Emily St. James, and others. Attempts to engage on user talk page are met with hostility or blanking warnings. Zim Zala Bim talk 00:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It has as of this edit expired and they have returned to editing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

User:192.181.85.245 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Etymology */"
 * 2)  "/* Etymology */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bucharest."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also them acting in the previous days. It seems they particularly hate the Turks, see their other edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Disruption continues, I have reported it at Requests for page protection. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Theknightwho reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Both users blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, but edit-warring nonetheless. Seem to be POINTy edits. Theknightwho removed some unsourced wording (common enough statement in the lit, but not one I have a ref handy for), and I cleaned up the result by restoring the subject of the paragraph. Theknightwho then edit-warred over deleting the subject, claiming it was "redundant". Of course, you don't want the topic of a para to be a pronoun, because if someone copies the para, it won't make sense out of context. Theknightwho seems to object to the wording "spelling alphabet", but that follows from the lead and is well-sourced.

Anyway, it's late, I'm tired and am going to bed. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: The full context of this hasn't really been explained, and is cross-project because it involves a disagreement that has mostly happened at Wiktionary. I know we're only concerned about Wikipedia here, but some of the Wiktionary stuff is necessary to understand what went on here.
 * The issue is over the term "phonetic alphabet", which has two meanings: it can refer to phonetic transcription (e.g. the IPA) or spelling alphabets (e.g. the NATO phonetic alphabet). @User:Kwamikagami considers the second usage to be incorrect and thinks we should always call those alphabets "spelling alphabets", which I consider to be prescriptivist. I think they're just synonyms, and in any event a prescriptivist tone is explicitly disllowed on Wiktionary (and frowned upon here, so far as I'm aware).
 * Kwamikagami added the paragraph in question back in March 2021, and made similar edits to the "phonetic alphabet" and "spelling alphabet" entries at Wiktionary a few hours later. That paragraph was then used by someone else to add a similar note to the "phonetic alphabet" Wiktionary entry in May 2021.. This issue came to my attention yesterday, when I noticed wikt:Template:phonetic alphabet had just been moved by Kwamikagami to wikt:Template:spelling alphabet on the basis that these are not phonetic alphabets. We then had a lengthy discussion in which we managed to come to some level of agreement at a few points, but which was ultimately frustrated because (from my perspective) it didn't really feel like Kwamikagami was arguing in good faith, but instead wanted everyone to follow their preferred terminology, irrespective of whether their arguments actually made any sense when taken as a whole. However, the paragraph in question is one of the things that started that discussion in the first place (yes, I did check the WP article history), so I changed it to something more neutral when it seemed like Kwamikagami had at least conceded that what mattered was how a term is used, and not what they personally deemed correct.
 * In that context, Kwamikagami changing the wording from Although called "phonetic alphabets" to Although spelling alphabets are commonly called "phonetic alphabets" felt like an attempt to insert prescriptivism in by the back door by implying that one is more correct than the other (and also a bit of WP:OWN, to be honest). I reverted it on the basis that it's redundant (which it is as the referent is obvious), but also because I didn't want to reignite things based on a hunch by making an accusation after one revert. However, after it was reinstated I then explained why it was a problem. Kwamikagami then added their wording for a third time on the basis that I should take it to the talk page and stop edit warring, which felt like pretty obvious bad faith given the discussion we'd already had (and their own edit-warring behaviour). Their warning on my talk page was anything but an attempt to resolve the issue, and just seemed like a way to throw their weight around while insulting me.
 * Honestly, I'm not happy that any of this happened and wish I hadn't got involved, but I'm really unimpressed with the actions of an editor that has this much experience. Theknightwho (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So far there is nothing about this disagreement on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was completely exhausted dealing with this because it felt like the points had been discussed already between the two of us, but someone else has conveniently started a conversation on the talk page on the name issue, so hopefully we can build some kind of consensus on how to handle the naming collision between the two kinds of "phonetic alphabet". Theknightwho (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not happy that any of this happened and wish I hadn't got involved, but I'm really unimpressed with the actions of an editor that has this much experience. Theknightwho (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So far there is nothing about this disagreement on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was completely exhausted dealing with this because it felt like the points had been discussed already between the two of us, but someone else has conveniently started a conversation on the talk page on the name issue, so hopefully we can build some kind of consensus on how to handle the naming collision between the two kinds of "phonetic alphabet". Theknightwho (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Since making this report, Kwamikagami has replied to the previous conversation on Wiktionary about something else, and also decided to call me grossly ignorant on a project talk page over a different disagreement, without even tagging me to inform me they’d made the post (which I have had to move to the correct forum, as things work a little differently on Wiktionary due to it being smaller). What they have not done is try to engage with me on this issue anywhere. I’m struggling to see the good faith here. Theknightwho (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * has now reverted for a fourth time, clearly trying to circumvent 3RR on a technicality. This is a breach of WP:3RR, which says that Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. They have still made no attempt to discuss the issue, and this user is experienced enough to be aware that this is bad faith. Theknightwho (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Not a 3RR violation, but edit-warring nonetheless." Indeed. You are both capable of resolving this dispute through discussion as you have clearly tried at length. Consider using DRN or something else and bringing in some other people to make a consensus more likely. After you come back in from the hall. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User:1.144.111.89 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 60h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (not the article talk page, but I tried to explain the issue by reaching out directly on the editor's talk page)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:


 * since they went well beyond 3RR and never responded to requests to discuss Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User:‎Clicriffhard reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. .

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Pretty straightforward 3RR violation at Talk:Graham Linehan over removal, and then hatting of a disruptive IP editor's comments. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I would point out that while the four reverts were not identical with each other (nor does that matter), they actually all involved restoring an IP comment and all included restoring the non-neutral subject line favored by the IP, ‎He's not anti-trans. He's pro-women. There's a difference. Also note that I tried twice to hat the off-topic IP comment after CliCriffhard objected to its removal, to which Clicriffhard responded with the last two reverts. Also note that, after Clicriffhard became aware of the GENSEX discretionary sanctions - that is, before the third and fourth reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A minor factual correction: I did not become aware of the GENSEX discretionary sanctions until just now as the pair of you made multiple comments on my talk page in a short space of time and also started this conversation and I haven't been able to keep up with it. Having scanned the page now, I don't understand the relevance to the issue at hand, but perhaps you can explain that. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors are expected to hold themselves to higher standards (e.g., when it comes to civility and edit warring) on discretionary sanctions topics such as this one. Graham Linehan is a controversial figure precisely for what he would call his "gender critical" activism.
 * Also, you can't really blame the activity of other editors for you not having read a notice posted to your Talk page), when you wrote responses to the sections immediately above and below it over the next 45 minutes after it was posted. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is absurd. Sideswipe9th and Newimpartial have been repeatedly trying to delete or remove portions of an IP user's comment on an article's talk page, and I've simply reinstated it because it is very clearly a comment about the article's treatment of its subject - I don't find it a very compelling comment but they have every right to make it and either be engaged with or ignored. For whatever reason, Sideswipe9th has decided to accuse me of edit-warring and not Newimpartial, who was the user who started the repeated deletion of someone else's comment on a talk page. Sideswipe9th is also fully aware that I was midway through posting on an administrators' noticeboard to get some outside input, but has decided that it's a clever idea to race me to it?! Frankly I don't know what to make of that, but I hope that whoever picks this up is able to see through it. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:3RRNO do you think covers I've simply reinstated it because it is very clearly a comment about the article's treatment of its subject - I don't find it a very compelling comment but they have every right to make? The policy is not known to care about editors' feelings or noble intentions. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this excuses the WP:3RR violation you have made by virtue of your fourth revert to that page, in the space of 4 hours. If you self-revert, I will be happy to withdraw this as resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you are trying to game the system by splitting your edit-warring between the two of you and then claiming it's a simple numbers game, and I'm sure you understand that you'd have hit this magic line before me if you hadn't worked in tandem. And again, you (specifically Newimpartial) made the initial reversion of the IP editor's talk page comment, and then the pair of you have taken it in turns to repeat the deletion with subtle variations. That is edit-warring. I'm completely fed up with the bad-faith argumentation, the hypocrisy, the game-playing, and the bullying of various editors that I've seen from a small group of people that includes the pair of you over the course of what must be many months now. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a whole lot of WP:ASPERSIONS - are you sure that's where you want to go with this? Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, please stop playing silly games. You can't be deliberately provocative in the hope of eliciting a reaction and then start tugging on the admins' skirts when people don't enjoy it. Or rather, you can, but only if people let you. The fact that this sort of manipulation seems to work forces me to consider that Wikipedia does not, but I hope that someone here will have the intelligence to see through it. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Clicriffhard, please stop with the accusations. More than one editor is allowed to dispute your conduct on a talkpage, and you appear to be abusing the talkpage as a soapbox rather than as a serious discussion of content.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not posting on the talk page. I am trying to enable an IP user to make on-topic comments on a talkpage. That is literally all. Which accusations do you disagree with anyway? Clicriffhard (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find reasons to not block you for edit-warring and personal attacks. You're not making it easy, and your responses on this talkpage do not provide assurance that you understand the problem. I suggest you withdraw your accusations against other editors, rather than upping the ante.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Which accusations do you disagree with? Again, if you want to say that I'm edit-warring for trying to prevent editors from *repeatedly deleting another user's comment on a talk page* then I hope you'll at least say the same of Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th before long. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the issue Acroterion is having is that you've made multiple accusations of bad behavior of other editors without providing any supporting evidence. It's not easy to say what accusations someone disagrees with if they don't know what your justification for making the accusations is in the first place. P HANTOM T ECH (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself, playing silly games, being deliberately provocative in the hope of eliciting a reaction ... tugging on the admins' skirts when people don't enjoy it and manipulation make up a long list of accusations that are (1) false, (2) egregious violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA and (3) not supported by a shred of evidence. I'm not entirely convinced that you have calmly considered your approach to this forum, TBH. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Just an observation. But, I think it might've been best to have hatted & collapsed the questionable discussion, rather then outright delete it. An editor tends to anger quicker & more, if their post gets deleted. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * GoodDay if you care to read the third and fourth diffs, those were reverting Newimpartial's hatting and collapsing of that discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it isn't my post that they're deleting. My annoyance, which might seem excessive to you, is because I've seen the same group of editors enforce the same possessive strictures on the article in question over a long period, and now they've resorted to deleting comments on a talk page, which strikes me as outrageous. On the whole, I feel extremely disappointed and disillusioned that Wikipedia editors in general are more interested in fussing over superficial "civility" than making sure that the site remains a collaborative encyclopedia and not an easily manipulable collection of pamphlets.
 * I agree that it would have been better to hat and collapse the discussion than outright delete it, but when that was attempted, half of the comment (being contained in the title) was needlessly deleted in the process. In any event, I struggle to see a justification for immediately hatting the comment before anyone's had a chance to discuss/dispute/develop its points. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are aware that in the version you reverted for your fourth revert, I retained the IP's section title text within the collapsed section. You saw that, right? Newimpartial (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Clicriffhard for 24 hours, primarily for personal attacks, which have continued after I asked that they be withdrawn. "What did I do wrong?" is simply unresponsive to an obvious problem with conduct toward other editors, and is a red flag for further issues.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Minaghahraman (Result: Declined)
Page: https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_مهدی_موسوی

MEHDI MOUSAVI: https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=بحث_کاربر:Mahdi_Mousavi&oldid=35058582

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/بحث:سید_مهدی_موسوی#اشکالات_بی%E2%80%8Cشمار_در_محتوا،_اطلاعات_و_منابع

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I was trying to edit a page -which I found out about its short comings because of its English version- And tried my best to point out the fact that it has no references except the subject himself, but as I wad still editing, the subject himself and with an ID, identical to his own name, boldly edited his own page! I have joined just a couple of days ago and one of the first steps was the declaration of not to try to create or edit a page for myself or someone close. Are people really allowed to create their own personal pages on Wiki, brag about anything they want and keep the others from criticizing or editing their pages? Don’t understand how someone can boldly do this and don’t even feel the need to create a fake account and under a different name… Would appreciate it you answer my question; spend a lot of time working on that page and witnessing this bold action made me feel hopeless about bettering things and striving towards the truth. Thank you


 * Also, this noticeboard only covers the English Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Msftwin95 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1097158660 by FlightTime (talk) Cut it out. I used three sources, all of which are reliable."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1097137582 by Binksternet (talk)  I'm pretty sure it counts as a reliable source, but I've added a couple more for good measure. Whether Counting Crows are a rock rather than a jangle pop band is your own point of view, as many sources describe them as both."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1097134399 by Binksternet (talk) The source explicitly refers to them as jangle pop. I honestly have no idea why this was reverted."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1097120348 by Binksternet (talk) Sourced genre"
 * 5) Special:Diff/1097169958

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Counting Crows."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Now starting on another page Special:Diff/1097170392  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Now with this reversion Msftwin95 is past 3RR to 5RR. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 6RR now. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Editonic reported by User:NikolaosFanaris (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to resolve this and asked him to provide proof that WP policy does not allow the political position to be stated in the introduction. He refused to provide proof, admitted there is no policy and reverted me again.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Pretty straightforward 3RR violation and continuous removal of cited content showing the affilication of a certain Greek politician with far-right movements. Editonic keeps erasing the label citing WP policy, which is a straightforward lie, and instead kept reverting me without engaging in a discussion. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Have already replied at my talk page; Political positions are not put in the lead by general rule, plus asked the editor to provide me examples of such and they did not. Editonic (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Examples of other articles? There is no WP policy prohibiting this. If you want to add similar labels to other articles, feel free to. Until then, stop vandalising. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

And now a 6th revert(!) even after I initiated a discussion in the talk page to which he didn't respond! It's quite clear that he is opinions on the article without contributing in good faith. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously hadn't seen it as of that time but already made a compromise with my last edit to the page (i.e. putting the information at the controversy part). And yes, as for the former I can re-mention the ones I already did at my talk page (Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Alexis Tsipras, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) and many other ones. Editonic (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that you cannot force those opinions on articles? You refused to discuss this instead pushed for instant reverts - you have violated 3RR repeatedly without even engaging in dialogue. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What was done on my talk page and the responds at almost all your edit summaries, actually is one. Not to mention the fact you also reverted mοst of my edits without providing an edit summary, thus am I the one there who does not want to make a dialogue? Editonic (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, at the article's tp you claim I believed Georgiadis does not belong at the far-right. Never claimed such thing, just suggested that since the information is already part of the infobox and another section, it is an exaggeration to put it on the lead too (besides not being put there commonly). Editonic (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is just your opinion and have not provided any WP policy articles to back this. It's just your POV. Just because it ain't common (which can be disputed), does not give you the right to remove cited content and a clear ideological affiliation without prior discussion. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Already explained the reason I did it but as you can notice per my last edit, I already implemented a compromise by putting the information at the controversy part. Editonic (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * NikolaosFanaris indefinitely blocked for edit-warring (this is not his first time - he seems to spend most of his time edit-warring given the number of contributions). Editonic indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:240:8400:8A00:0:0:0:831A reported by User:Czello (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Changed the end date of WWE Championship Name"
 * 2)  "/* Names */"
 * 3)  "/* Reigns */"
 * 4)  "/* Names */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* List of WWE champions */ new section"

Comments:
 * The user does seem to be headed toward making a pest of themselves, even though they only edit intermittently just about every projectspace edit they've ever made has been reverted. However, since this report, they have not edited in over 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User:2A01:4B00:8449:3900:C8AE:161A:FE24:E93D reported by User:JeffUK (Result: /64 range blocked for six months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Lol.  It is you who doesn't understand basic English.  'They' is not a singular pronoun.  Grammatical errors corrected."
 * 2)  "Corrected aforesaid grammatical errors"
 * 3)  "Corrected grammatical errors.  Plural wrongly being used to describe a singular person."
 * 4)  "Corrected grammatical errors"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:Nothere, warned for warring on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A01:4B00:8449:3900:C8AE:161A:FE24:E93D&oldid=1096834237 already JeffUK (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And not just the IP, but the whole range ... they have a quite a history of doing this sort of thing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Grenertson1 reported by User:Sammi Brie (Result: User and underlying /64 blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1097163510 by Yoshi24517 (talk) It did not defend the titles at supecard of honor."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1097237407 by Grenertson1 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1097076488 by 2600:6C55:4B00:75D:25A0:9184:E85B:D97F (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1097072506 by Czello (talk) Again i don't like the Sinclair era logo in black."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1097043267 by CeltBrowne (talk) and I Don't like the old logo in black."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1097072506 by Czello (talk) Again i don't like the Sinclair era logo in black."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1097043267 by CeltBrowne (talk) and I Don't like the old logo in black."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is heavily reverting and removing content without much sense on a variety of wrestling and television pages. They have pushed past 3RR on this page. They undid a logo change on Up TV, removed references, removed the short description on American Samoa without giving a reason, etc. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 18:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Along with the underlying /64, from which they made a few edits. I am acting on the assumption they were unaware at the time that they weren't logged in; there may well be competence issues in play here. But if it should be necessary to block this user again, the /64 should be blocked as well for the same duration. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Lyvia Lessa reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: Both users blocked; one for 24h other for 12h )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Javon Walton."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Javon Walton."
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Javon Walton."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I see a big problem with this report. The editor you reported was not given an edit warning or 3RR warning on their talk page, so they likely have no idea about edit-warring or more specifically about 3RR. There are vandalism templates you placed on their talk page, but their edits are not vandalism. Further, they didn't violate 3RR, you are the one who has violated the 3RR rule, making 4 reverts within 22 minutes of each other. I also don't see that you've made any attempt to discuss this on the talk page or on the user's talk page, and even your edit summaries don't include an explanation of what's wrong with the edit so how would they know? Maybe slow down and discuss the content? - Aoidh (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please address the issues raised by .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They're continuing to edit but haven't addressed this or made any attempt at further talk page discussion. I think perhaps does need a small block for violating the bright-line rule of 3RR so that they don't think it's okay to continue to edit-war and just ignore the AN3 discussion when it doesn't get the result they want. The only reason the edit warring stopped is because  stopped, but Bts still violated 3RR and has refused to comment here further about how they edit-warred without discussion, and they likely would have continued to edit war had Lyvia not stopped first. Since they want to ignore these concerns about how they handled their edit warring I think that a block would get their attention and would be preventative in that it would help prevent future edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a comment on anything. If you need to have me blocked, then go ahead and proceed with it. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 00:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Although BTSPurplegalaxy's is, per above, shorter than usual. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

User:73.88.136.56 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: blocked 15mo)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "We do not want voice actors on images. They are bad for us."
 * 2)  "We do not want voice actors on images."
 * 3)  "We do not want voice actors on images."
 * 4)  "We do not want voice actors on images."
 * 5)  "We do not want voice actors on images."
 * 6)  "We do not want voice actors on images."
 * 7)  "We do not want voice actors on images."
 * 8)  "We do not want voice actors on images."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on The Incredibles."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on The Incredibles."
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Toy Story."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also edit warring on

Long-term disruptive static IP. 15 months (prior to having noticed this report). -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 05:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Rocco30 reported by User:Tamzin (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: for 1–2;  for 3–5

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (rv of, itself an rv of Rocco's first removal): Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And there is no mention of tension relations with "various" countries, only tension with Korea.
 * 2) : biased source.(bad wording like "ultra" nationalist.) It goes against the wiki neutrality policy.
 * 3)  (rv of, itself an rv of Rocco's addition): Recover deleted content without reason.
 * 4) : There is no reason to remove it. Please do not try to maintain only one-sided opinions.
 * 5) : Add only articles with a summary.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: after the 2nd revert

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Rocco has made 5 reverts in 19 hours concerning Shinzo Abe and South Korea. I'll grant that there may be a few others in the page history who are past 3RR, but in the manner that tends to happen on pages getting a surge of visibility: reverting lots of disparate unconstructive edits. Rocco seems to be the only one who has crossed 3RR over just one matter, despite my warning them when they were at 2 reverts, and multiple past warnings for edit-warring. They are indefinitely blocked on the Japanese Wikipedia for disruption. I reverted their 2nd revert, so would like an uninvolved admin to take a look. No reverts in seven hours (last revert occurring around 1 AM in Japan), but I see no reason to think they've stopped. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have never ignored your warning. Rather, I accepted your warning and left the description of the comfort women as it is. I just added it because I think Abe's opinion is necessary after that, and it is also important from the wiki's multiple and neutral point of view. So it's not a revert.
 * On the other hand, a member named John is trying to revert, and this part seems to need a discussion.
 * By the way, I am Korean. This can be found by examining my IP history. Rocco30 (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the content, you were advised by a different user that even if Abe did really made that response, it should be placed in the body, but you did not listen. Your constant messy re-additions of your edit to the lead section is disruptive and is why you were being reverted. Your references are all WP:BAREURLS as well. John Yunshire (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "The lead should summarize the article; this is not mentioned anywhere else in the body of the article. If you wish to make this addition it should be put in the body first. Maybe in the section regarding his fourth term." are you talking about this?
 * I may have misinterpreted it. that the article did not contain relevant information. WP:BAREURLS I will keep it. Rocco30 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have also replaced your Japanese sources with English ones, the Japan and South Korea issue in 2019 was widely covered in English sources as well, so I don't see why we can't just use that instead. It is also much more impartial to use an English source when compared to a Japanese or Korean source, especially when the topic relates to both countries. John Yunshire (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for replacing with the English source.Originally, I was trying to find an article in Korea, but it was difficult to find an article with Abe's position as the title in Korea. I added it because another user said the title and content had to match. I also understand well what you said, and I will try to add more in English in the future. Rocco30 (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I grant that if I had come across this fresh yesterday, without any of the discussion above, I would have been strongly inclined to block. However, this discussion seems to have been productive and Rocco has not edited the page in almost 18 hours. So, for now, I don't see a need to act. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

User:JoeKZ03 reported by User:Cassiopeia (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported: User:JoeKZ03

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and editor deleted the message so many times - see here

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

, , , , and 
 * In repsond to all the unsourced and edit warring messages, the editor personal attack on the editors - see

Comments:


 * The editor in question is clearly WP:NOTHERE based on his responses and personal attacks. See <b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:110%;color:#E285FF"> ♡RAFAEL♡</b>(<b style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color#FF00FF">talk</b>) 05:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User clearly intends to vandalize the page and attack other users until a ban is given. They have made it known repeatedly through the edit history of the page in question. Sdpdude9
 * as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

User:176.35.218.33 reported by User:Fama Clamosa (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1097361068 by Fama Clamosa (talk) rv disruptive editor making unexplained revert, apparently with no other intent than to edit-war"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1097360277 by 86.187.165.115 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1097296195 by DeCausa (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ew"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * as an LTA by Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

User:HMRC69 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

VViking Talk Edits 13:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

User:206.162.215.31 & User:74.132.143.168 reported by User:Throast (Result: Both IPs and /16 ranges blocked for two weeks without talk page access)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:ONUS, though this is obviously a case of clear vandalism

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:

Rampant vandal with no intention of stopping. Range block might be appropriate looking at the IP's comment. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 16:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 74.35 got 31 hours; 202.162 2 weeks. I did indeed make the latter a range block and, just because they said they liked a challenge, cut off talk page access for the duration as I also suspect they would misuse that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I have similarly extended the block on the other IP to its range, for the same time, without talk page access. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , these IPs are the same person. Why would they get different blocks? Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 22:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't read my update, which was ... oh, literally right above what you wrote, posted almost four hours earlier . But to be fair, most reports here are usually of a single editor, and when we get reports naming multiple editors we usually wind up presuming they're different people. In fact the threat to use the range to evade the block used "we". I would also point out another admin made the initial block of 74.35. And even so, I would implore you to, if in the future you report two IPs that you believe are the same person here, say so in the report. Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did read the update and checked their respective logs; 74.35's block log still says 31 hours. What am I missing? By reporting them both at once and referring to both as a "rampant vandal" (singular), I thought I'd already clearly implied that I believe they're the same person. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 01:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You missed the part that says I have similarly extended the block on the other IP to its range. Here's the range in question. M.Bitton (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately, when an IP in a blocked range is blocked individually only the latter shows up. When the 31 hours expire the rangeblock will show up in their stead. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. Wasn't aware of that technicality. Learned something new today. :) Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 11:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

User:80.44.237.238 reported by User:EnIRtpf09b (Result: Blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1097562435 by 47.227.95.73 (talk) removing ungrammatical nonsense is, quite obviously, not disruptive. are you literate?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1097560094 by STATZET (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1097559774 by Hey man im josh (talk) it was explained. why lie?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1097559636 by 47.227.95.73 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1097559400 by 47.227.95.73 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1097559009 by Hey man im josh (talk) the text was nonsense, but you obviously didn't bother to read it"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1097554070 by MaxnaCarta (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: "Authentically looking profiles had allegedly hundreds of thousands of followers. Didn't specify whether faked or not" is garbage. It should be removed instantly. There is no excuse for anyone restoring such shit. 80.44.237.238 (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point, I am starting to wonder if this IP is evading a block. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is a sock (even WP:DUCK) of BKFIP. I won't report this though because of an earlier incident. GTNO6 (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What incident are you referring to? 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can see it on my talk page. GTNO6 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, well, I have filed one already, based off of his persistent edit warring and abusive edit summaries. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground, and if you are persistently removing things against consensus this is disruptive editing and not allowed. IF you have three recent changes patrollers coming after you - it is time to assess your actions. Please rest assured we do not like focusing on people - normally it is revert and move on but your conduct has not been good. I agree with 47.227.95.73 - this IP appears to WP:QUACK - has intimate knowledge of policy for a new user. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually You are Edit Warring, you violated WP:3RR and will result in you being being blocked for edit warring. Chip3004 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

They're a troll removing topically relevant content from articles. Doesn't appear to be their first rodeo either. They've also been edit warring on Strained silicon and submitting false vandalism reports/comments on those who have reported them. I've reported them before this was posted, just waiting for an admin to deal with it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * An admin has said that we should try to reach a civil discussion with the IP. I'm willing to talk to them, as long as they drop the personal attacks and edit warring. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well they're not taking warnings seriously, but I'll issue an edit warring warning anyways then since the admin who responded believed they're editing in good faith. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This IP appears to have been blocked by Bbb23. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked 72h.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

User:79.101.140.54 reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

This ip went past 3RR. continues to edit war Chip3004 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Removing unsourced and original research content, always explained in mine edit summary. Never removed what is in source or without explanation. I know to sometimes maybe someone not read edit summaries but please. 79.101.140.54 (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If the IP had brought his concerns to the article's talkpage, instead of repeatedly removing material. It would've been best. Also concerned, that the IP seems fixated on that 'one' article. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fixated"? That IP has maybe 36 hours worth of edits. The very second one removed the erroneous entry in the infobox, with the edit summary "ideologies, the main ones, not individual policies for specific questions." This was immediately reverted without explanation. The user indeed should have gone to talk page at this point, when other editors also reverted for reasons not relevant to the validity of the edit, but there was no vandalism. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Rightly or wrongly, the IP appears to have achieved his goal at the page-in-question & so has 'now' moved on. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * per jpgordon, above. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Vinit bhatt goswami reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Recently kautilya3 is changing the real info he should be ban from editing pages"
 * 2)  "Recently kautilya3 is changing the real info he should be ban from editing"
 * 3)  "Better then the before"
 * 4)  "Better then before"
 * 5)  "/* Legendary accounts */Better then before"
 * 6)  "Best"
 * 7)  "Better then before"
 * 8)  "It is edited by contemprory sources"
 * 9)  "Contemprory sources"
 * 1)  "It is edited by contemprory sources"
 * 2)  "Contemprory sources"
 * 1)  "Contemprory sources"
 * 1)  "Contemprory sources"
 * 1)  "Contemprory sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bappa Rawal."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bappa Rawal."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor's changes have been reverted by several people over the last 24 hours and even earlier. They keep coming back. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They did at least one more revert after this report. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:243:601:DEE0:109D:9A6A:777C:5B98 reported by User:Informationageuser (Result: Semiprotection; user's /64 also blocked for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "hillel levin illegally broke a contract on the book as a ghost writer. In addition hillel has absolutely zero to do with the mini series. I don't care what any other web site says I'm telling you legally what are the facts. hillels name must be removed permanently."
 * 2)  "JAMES KEENE"
 * 3)  "James Keene"
 * 4)  "I'm the real James Keene. I am the subject. Black Bird is my series based on my life and my book. hillel levin was an assistant ghost writer who illegally broke our contract and is out. He is not to be on my Wikepedia or any other sites. He had zero to do with my mini series. Keep this illegal person off my profiles about me and my life."
 * 5)  "My book and mini series has nothing to do with hillel levin. Stop allowing this guy to be on my Wikipedia page. He can get his own, he was and is no part of the mini series and has zero to do with my mini series."
 * 6)  "Black Bird is my book and my series by "James Keene" alone. hillel levin had zero to do with the filming and creation of my movie series! He was a secondary ghost writer and had zero to do with the films creation. Please quit putting this guy on my wikepdia page."
 * 1)  "I'm the real James Keene. I am the subject. Black Bird is my series based on my life and my book. hillel levin was an assistant ghost writer who illegally broke our contract and is out. He is not to be on my Wikepedia or any other sites. He had zero to do with my mini series. Keep this illegal person off my profiles about me and my life."
 * 2)  "My book and mini series has nothing to do with hillel levin. Stop allowing this guy to be on my Wikipedia page. He can get his own, he was and is no part of the mini series and has zero to do with my mini series."
 * 3)  "Black Bird is my book and my series by "James Keene" alone. hillel levin had zero to do with the filming and creation of my movie series! He was a secondary ghost writer and had zero to do with the films creation. Please quit putting this guy on my wikepdia page."
 * 1)  "Black Bird is my book and my series by "James Keene" alone. hillel levin had zero to do with the filming and creation of my movie series! He was a secondary ghost writer and had zero to do with the films creation. Please quit putting this guy on my wikepdia page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* July 2022 Notices/Warnings */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* July 2022 Notices/Warnings */fixed link to vandalized page"
 * 1)   "/* July 2022 Notices/Warnings */fixed link to vandalized page"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Consistently vandalizes page (sometimes breaking code structure as well) using multiple IPs including this one, claiming ownership of page and edits. In short, claims to be one of the two authors of the source material and demands that we do not show the other co-author. I opened a discussion for this on the talk page and we had consensus, which this user ignored. Informationageuser (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, here are the additional IPs suspected to be the same user based on similar/same acts of vandalism and blanking of the same content (co-author). In fact, the user repeats many comments as well. Each below is linked to IP edit history (not a single edit from any of the 5 IPs has been outside of the Black Bird page. [| 2601:243:600:4850:D809:ABF8:3045:E095] [| 2601:243:600:4850:116:81EE:E429:5103] [| 2601:243:601:DEE0:5F5:50A1:2CC2:814E] [| 2601:243:601:DEE0:B40F:D049:9D71:CB00]

Thank you. Informationageuser (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: The page Black Bird (miniseries) has been semiprotected for a month. Possibly the IP editor (who says he is James Keene) will eventually find the article talk page. They are editing from Special:Contributions/2601:243:601:0:0:0:0:0/48. It appears there is some real-world dispute about author credit. But unless there are reliable sources we can't take note of that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have also blocked the IP's /64 for 72 hours. Should that be extended to the /48? Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Long-term edit warring on articles of Irish personalities over COVID-19 views


These articles are facing very specific, long-term edit warring by constantly changing IP users (assumed to be the same person due to similarity in tone and edits), over the inclusion of passages stating that they supported COVID-19 vaccine mandates and vaccine passports. However the wording of these passages are done in a non-neutral and undue manner by using wording (including "medical segregation" and "banned from society") intended to POVPUSH the fringe anti-mandate position and shame the article subjects for expressing pro-mandate views.

They constantly revert my attempts to remove this content, and accuse me of "[erasing] facts to suit a biased view". In the case of the former, they claim these statements must be included because "Most media consumers would only know him for these views and nothing else". These edits are problematic and I'd be curious to learn if this has been going on elsewhere. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This complaint does not belong on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

User:212.187.183.20 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1097818875 by MrOllie (talk) rvv"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1097816236 by Ingenuity (talk) WP:NPOV, WP:WTW"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1097813824 by Ingenuity (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1097810414 by MrOllie (talk) opinions should never be presented as if factual. Npov, wtw"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1097805999 by Meters (talk) WP:NPOV, WP:WTW"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1097804358 by Meters (talk) WP:NPOV"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1097770402 by McSly (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Comments: Stop abusing the page by adding the non-neutral word "controversial". If you want to edit war to violate a core policy, that is your own serious problem. 212.187.183.20 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You actully Violated Three Revert Rule which is now Edit warring. It's not Vandalism Chip3004 (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As, looking at 185.104.136.58, we're now dealing with IP address hopping, I have semi-protected the page, as semi-protection is explicitly allowed in such cases (WP:SEMI). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a talk-page discussion a while ago. Should the article use the wording that it had after that had run its course, which is also the WP:STATUSQUO until the current IPs' multiply-disputed changes? Or should the IPs' WP:WRONGVERSION stand as the locked form and pending discussion? DMacks (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for having a look. While the question appears to be rhetorical and the "wrong version" has already been (re-)reverted, I'm fine with both. My only concern was bringing the edit war to an end in the least invasive policy-compliant way. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

User:80.47.202.50 reported by User:Throast (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:
 * several other IPs presumed to be the same person, see article edit history
 * several other IPs presumed to be the same person, see article edit history

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff
 * 7) diff
 * 8) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:ONUS; unresponsive: several attempts to educate the user about reliable sources were ignored

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:

This person (multiple IPs) has repeatedly made the same change to the article for months, spanning all the way back to April. Warning messages on various IP talk pages were ignored. Possibly a case of WP:COMPETENCE; they might not even realize that their editing is disruptive. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Donthreatenme reported by User:Ylee (Result: Partial blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (3R violation)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by. User's response:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: During dispute, IP editor 115.66.125.189 threatened me in edit summary: "Learn to read what is called a summary, before yapping back like a dog. I'll keep doing it if you won't stop." When I replied "Sorry, I don't obey threats from IP editors", IP editor created. Ylee (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Partial blocked from the article itself for 48 hours. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Stevencocoboy reported by User:Sa Young Sun (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 02:47, 13 July 2022 - order of credits and posters

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 03:54, 13 July 2022
 * 2) 04:05, 13 July 2022
 * 3) 04:18, 13 July 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Violated MOS:TVCAST.--Sa Young Sun (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see an attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page. Note that you too have reverted Stevencocoboy three times, you cite policy when you do so, but that is not a defense.  331dot (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't reverted Stevencocoboy three times. I edited it at the first following what MOS:TVCAST says: "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits", then Stevencocoboy tried to revert it, but I only reverted it "twice".
 * I tried to tell Stevencocoboy what MOS:TVCAST says (here and here). We had discussion about "Cast list" for the page at zh-wiki, so I didn't want to do the same thing again and again, when MOS:TVCAST says is very clear. I noted the reason at summary when I publish changes. Does Stevencocoboy wrote down any edit summary? Nope. Sa Young Sun (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, it is only two. Nevertheless, you still must attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page before coming here. I can't speak to what happens on other language versions of Wikipedia, which are all independent projects.  If your dispute is here, it should be discussed here. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I don't understand why you keep removing the names of those two actors. M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion at Talk:Miss Monte-Cristo. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Venkat TL reported by User:Dympies (Result: Murder of Kanhaiya Lal extended-confirmed protected; Venkat TL blocked 24 h)
Pages:



User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * On 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy:
 * 1) 14:11, 11 July 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎  59,567 bytes −3,607‎  Note: claims he "revert sock edits", though there was no sock
 * 2) 07:02, 12 July 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎  59,551 bytes −3,606‎
 * 3) 12:18, 12 July 2022 Venkat TL talk contribs‎  59,551 bytes −3,606‎
 * 4) 20:02, 12 July 2022 Venkat TL talk contribs‎  59,551 bytes −3,501‎


 * On Murder of Kanhaiya Lal:


 * 1) 06:48, 12 July 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 16,755 bytes −755‎
 * 2) 12:18, 12 July 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 16,691 bytes −755‎
 * 3) 20:08, 12 July 2022‎ Venkat TL talk contribs‎ 17,513 bytes −755‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

He is edit warring all over and using the RfC he started to block consensus against his POV pushing and spurious claims of BLP violation against consensus on talk page, and WP:BLPN. He is being a disruptive WP:1AM trying to present as if every other editor is being disruptive to the extent that he leaves notes on everyone's talk page whoever reverts him, when he is himself the only disruptive editor here.

Continued spurious claims of BLP violation even after those many discussions where nobody else except himself claimed BLP violation confirms that Venkat TL is being willfully disruptive or it's a competence issue. Dympies (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * for a clear 3RR vio on the second article. The first has been extended-confirmed protected by . Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The so-called "edit warring / 3RR warning" was not an an edit-warring notice. It accused Venkat TL of disruptive editing; it did not say that he/she had been edit-warring, and it did not mention anything about the three-revert rule. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus on his talk page was that it was a good block, but he was released early. I have no objections to that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Ermenrich reported by User:666hopedieslast (Result: Both warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 13 July 2022 - order of credits and posters

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 4th  15:02, 13 July 2022‎
 * 2) 3rd  11:49, 13 July 2022
 * 3) 2nd  11:47, 13 July 2022‎
 * 4) 1st  11:44, 13 July 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. Posted the exact policy on editors talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

666hopedieslast (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken the first and 2nd diff you've posted are the same revert. The "fourth revert" is on a completely different edit. Also, an AFD discussion is not "an attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page".--Ermenrich (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The 1st edit was corrected. 4 times reverting the article.
 * We have discussed it on the AFD page. Editor is aware but ignores the policy. 666hopedieslast (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That first and second revert are still part of the same removal of text, which generally counts as a single revert. The AFD discussion is not an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, which is talk:Patrick Lancaster.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On the second edit, you reverted me a second time. As I explained on your talk page: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."
 * After I stopped editing this page, and after the warning on your talk page, you started an edit war with a new editor.
 * The policy is clear. 666hopedieslast (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Diffs 1 and 2 are "a series of consecutive edits". That's just one revert. 2) I did not start an edit war, the other editor had already been reverted once by a third editor and had chosen to reinstate their edit.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Between the first and second edit, I made 2 more edits, which you reverted. 666hopedieslast (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the speed of your edits (within two minutes of my first reverts, and right before my second,, ), how would I know that you had made further edits? My intention was always to revert to the version prior to your insertion of pro-Kremlin propaganda - which I did. At any rate, you made no attempt to resolve the dispute before bringing it here, although I specifically have told you to use the article talk page in multiple places , , .--Ermenrich (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * that is four reverts on your part, given that yours is the most recent edit I suggest either self reverting or making it clear that you were reverting under WP:BLP which is a clear exception to 3rr (although generally it should be invoked before not after). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How do I make that clear after the fact? Article talk? I'm not about to reinsert a self-published source on a BLP page.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , I did so here, if it counts.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Make a null edit to the page saying that, something like "previous reversions made under WP:3RRNO #7" Longer term article talk is probably where the issue needs to be hashed out. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, done .--Ermenrich (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * that link is not to the article talk page, looking at the article talk page I can't find any indication that you made a good faith attempt at addressing the issue before bringing it here. What am I missing? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It was discussed on the AFD.
 * you are not an admin.  I am looking for an admin with the ability to block this rule breaker, to look this over.
 * Your exemption is bullshit. "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Ermenrich is the editor which is calling this BLP many names and everting well refenced sources including the BBC.
 * Can an admin look this over? I am wasting my time with this editor. 666hopedieslast (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not an admin, I'm only offering friendly advice. What is important here is that the disruption (the edit warring at Patrick Lancaster) has ceased and does not appear likely to continue. If you're in the mood to take my non-admin advice engage with the other party on the talk page about their very valid WP:BLP concerns rather than appealing to Admins for the punishment of an editor who has expressed contrition for overstepping 3rr and has provided a reasonable policy based explanation for doing so. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Look at WP:BLP again: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article Revert 4 was of a self-published source. Also: if you're going to make accusations against me (which are irrelevant to this question anyway) take it to another venue. This isn't the place.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What a clusterfuck. They whole article is a BLP violation. None of the sources are reliable.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Both editors have violated WP:BLP by using less-than reliable sources to make contentious claims about a living person with attributing those claims. Do not use tabloids like The Mirror or Vice Media as sources to make claims about living people (see WP:RSP). To claim someone is a propagandist, you need rock-solid sources.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be certain I understand you: does NBC news count as "rock solid" ?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @EvergreenFir - Please make a record of this warning at their talk pages please. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It does, but a single source cannot be used to support such a contentious claim. You can/should attribute that claim to NBC. If, say, BBC, NBC, NPR, and NYT all say someone is a propagandist, then it would not need to be attributed, just cited.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Unbh reported by User:Flexman (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) (addressing the issue and 3rd opinion)
 * 2) (Request for Comments)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

User Unbh is edit warring again, this time in a slow, drawn out edit-war on the mentioned article. I did try to ask for a 3rd opinion as well as a RfC. The result was not a clear yes or no, so I tried to find some reasonable phrasing for the given issue. However, User Unbh isn't really participating in the talk page and rather shows his opinion by doing a revert for the 4th time now. This user has already a history in edit warring, and was given a note for more collaborate behaviour as well as a warning concerning a different case. - Flexman (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did contribute on the talk page. There's no consensus to add this. There's no source. It's OR. You keep adding it without a source. WP:ONUS is on you to justify.Unbh (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment by IP: Unfortunately, user:Unbh he broke the 3RR rule here as well [], but later he chose the page to talk on the Battle for Vukovar page, as I told him.93.136.75.98 (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a random IP. No, I have not broken 3RR on that page, please read 3RR before you start citing it.Unbh (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, IP, please explain why you removed my reply to Flexman Unbh (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't move anything, I just wrote what I wrote, maybe it's a mistake. Maybe I opened this for writing before, and you wrote something in the meantime, so it received what I wrote, and yours deleted it. So write again the same thing you wrote. It must be a mistake, or maybe I accidentally deleted it, I have no idea.93.136.75.98 (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Mathmo reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Removing notability tag without addressing the underlying problem
 * 2)  Removing notability tag without addressing the underlying problem AND using completely false edit summary (there was no "multiple editors" disagreeing over the tag) as justification for edit warring
 * 3)  Same but also adding questionable source
 * 4)  Same and also edit warring against another editor, User:Kleinpecan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning for this particular article. Since this user has been WP:STALKing my edits and edit warring across multiple pages, they've also received additional warnings about their edit warring on other articles and from other editors:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

This whole episode has a somewhat bizarre feeling to it. It started when Mathmo reverted one of my edits on a different article, falsely marking it as minor. Then User:Beta Lohman reverted one of my edits and then quickly showed up to User:Mathmo's talk page to ask them to revert on their behalf. The text of their message is: The related page has been heavily deleted. I already have reverted the edit. You may help to maintain there.. This is about as clear WP:CANVASS request to tag-team in an edit war as you're gonna get. "Please edit war with me!" kind of stuff. This one's on Beta Lohman though.

However, Mathmo, not only obliged by showing up to that article and jumping right into the edit war, but also quickly began WP:STALKing my edits and moved onto other articles that I've been active on, to either revert me there as well or to !vote in discussions against me. In addition to the Maisky Market article (that this report is concerned with), they also showed up at: this article (never edited before, their comment is a response to my previous comments in that discussion), and this article (never edited before, etc). They then showed up to yet another article right after I made an edit to it. So together with Maisky Market, they showed up four other articles after being canvassed by Beta Lohman. I don't recall having any previous interactions with this user but their sudden devotion to following me around and jumping into articles I'm involved in is troubling to say the least and has a weird-creepy stalker feel to it.

They are also almost completely unconstructive when it comes to addressing the issues with these articles as they've been raised on talk. It's hard to avoid the feeling that their comments on talk are made mostly to justify the reverts and edit warring that follow.  Volunteer Marek  03:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not true. I was still waiting for a consensus to be reached. Also, the related page was deleted but reverted back by the WikiCleanerMan. Since this was reported to the admin board, I will only discuss the facts of the program part.--- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 03:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The diff is right here. Judging only by stuff that's on wiki, you never had any interaction with Mathmo before.  Volunteer Marek   03:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting even more bizarre. Original report was regarding User:Mathmo, who broke 3RR after being asked to help with reverting by User:Beta Lohman. But now the behavior of User:Beta Lohman is becoming extremely disruptive (and strange). On the talk page of Talk:Donetsk People's Republic–Russia relations:
 * Beta Lohman first says that they have reliable sources which would justify the text in the article "I have found reliable sources"
 * I then ask them to actually show these sources (I asked previously and received no reply)
 * Beta Lohman gives an answer that doesn't make any sense
 * I ask again, what sources did they find ?
 * Beta Lohman refuses to provide them, explicitly saying that "I will not answer that question, even though I have the information" (???)
 * One more time I ask them to provide these reliable sources that they claim they have
 * Beta Lohman says that they have them. But they refuse to provide them. And then some incoherent non-sequitur
 * I try one more time
 * Beta Lohman responds by leaving me nonsensical warnings on my talk page about a different article.

I honestly don't know how I'm suppose to deal with a user whose approach to discussion is "I have all these reliable sources but I will not show them to you" but insists on reverting nonetheless.

But it's even weirder. Two other users, User:Azurfrog and User:Panama2014 raise objections on talk similar to mine. Beta Lohman responds by saying that... well, let me just quote them But since here is English wikipedia, two guys of you are not contributors but joined the discussion. So I think you came here to talk about politics. This is apparently because Azurfrog is active on French wikipedia, so, according to Beta Lehman, they are not allowed to edit English wikipedia. ??? Or maybe it means that because they edit French wikipedia, their opinions expressed on English wikipedia carry no weight. Not sure. Either way, there's a problem here. Not sure if it's WP:COMPETENCE issue or just your usual WP:TENDENTIOUSness and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but either way, need something done here.  Volunteer Marek  06:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Correct your word. I said I have them, not they have them. -- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 06:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I'm not sure it's appropriate to say here. He also deleted the full text of Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations after this, so he's not trying to discuss consensus, he's deleting it all the time. In addition, I have given three single sources for the validity of the bilateral relationship that he questioned. However, what Volunteer Marek is doing is to keep litigating.-- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 06:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's try this one more time. What were these three sources?  Volunteer Marek   06:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On the take page. Here .-- Beta Lohman ※ Office box 06:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah... you already tried with those. These are not reliable sources. Do you have any *reliable* sources as you keep claiming? Regardless, this is about behavior and your repeated comments about refusing to provide source you claim to have ("I will not answer that question, even though I have the information") is the problem here.  Volunteer Marek   07:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Azurfrog is active on French wikipedia, so, according to Beta Lehman, they are not allowed to edit English wikipedia. ???" I must insist I have been active on the English WP ever since 2008... Why should I stop now? More to the point is the fact that I criticized (in French at first, and later in English) the "tendentiousness" of Beta Lohman 's article on the French WP well before I discovered the current edit war here.  Azurfrog (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

- there was a clear violation of the 3RR here, with four reverts of the template addition in 24 hours (the first of which was reverting Volunteer Marek's addition of the notability template in June), and Mathmo has been around long enough to be well aware of edit warring rules. This block does not imply judgement on whether Mathmo was right or wrong on the underlying issue itself or the other topics discussed in the thread above, and this board isn't the place for such non-edit-warring conduct or content issues anyway which should be held elsewhere. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:HeinzMaster reported by User:Popoki35 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1098099059 by HeinzMaster (talk): This is getting ridiculous, you could have easily just added the content back"
 * 4)  "Restored revision 1097674918 by GhostmanJohn (talk): Don't remove his kickboxing record"
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1098099059 by HeinzMaster (talk): This is getting ridiculous, you could have easily just added the content back"
 * 2)  "Restored revision 1097674918 by GhostmanJohn (talk): Don't remove his kickboxing record"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "notify"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent efforts to restore uncited/poorly cited content to BLP page with little effort to satisfy WP:BURDEN of providing reliable sources. Popoki35 (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Already protected by.
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:No-genius reported by User:Lard Almighty (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: diff diff diff diff

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked previously for edit warring. See TP history. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Lard Almighty is being generous by only listing 4 reversions. I'm counting 7 logged-in reversions, and another 3 by logged-out IPs (WP:QUACK). — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 14:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All I could be bothered to list! The main issue is that the editor is adding poorly sourced claims to a WP:BLP which are correctly being reverted by other editors. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Aniket Singh Bhadoria reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edit"
 * 1)  "Edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Shantel VanSanten."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Resumed after being blocked for edit warring on this article. See Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive455 for last report Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Further disruption at the article that the blocked editor was edit-warring at. I am thinking a case of block evasion here, with the blocked editor editing while logged out. MPFitz1968 (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The page Shantel VanSanten has been semiprotected two weeks by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked 24 hours; due to misunderstanding, subsequently unblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "We develop biographies in accordance with BLP guidelines, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE remains a core policy. A single tweet is UNDUE, especially when only ONE paper decided to mention it."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1097945192 by NomdeA (talk) A student's complaint making it to an official encyclopaedic biography instead of the subject's views quoted in the same article? Seriously? On a higher level, a four-paragraph biography of someone with a 25+ years academic career centring on a tweet certainly lacks BALANCE."
 * 3)  "Wikipedia is not a place to analyse tweets, especially tweets that received very few responses and have been CHERRY picked by some media. Read WP:INDISCRIMINATE"
 * 1)  "Wikipedia is not a place to analyse tweets, especially tweets that received very few responses and have been CHERRY picked by some media. Read WP:INDISCRIMINATE"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tim Hayward (political scientist)."

Comments:

most recent edit violates the 1RR restriction on this article. Editor was invited to self-revert but refused. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The second edit was not a revert, and also concerned an entirely different passage. Be more careful when filing reports so as not to waste the community's time. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  05:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't do this, but I'll give you a chance to self-revert, despite already being offered an opportunity to do so, which you dismissed apparently based on your claim that the second edit was not a revert, which is not true. In the first edit, you removed two paragraphs, the one sourced to The Times about the tweet, and the one sourced to the BBC about the student reaction to the tweets. In the second edit (two consecutive edits), you removed the The Times paragraph.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Thanks. The problem is that my first removal of the Times paragraph was not a revert – the paragraph was there in the article for weeks. Cheers, — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  14:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * you performed two reverts: this is the first revert and this is the second. I'll self-revert if I were you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it's not the same text reverted twice but two distinct passages (paragraphs). Anyhow, I'll self-revert for now, but this obviously doesn't mean that there's no problem with the text (and, more generally, with the WP:BALANCE of the entire article). — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  14:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My block was based on a misunderstanding, and I've unblocked the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:85.74.236.227 reported by User:Panosgatto (Result: Blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff
 * 7) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:

This person (maybe multiple IPs) keeps adding false information with no sources for some weeks now. I've tried many times to warn him through the article's revision history page, but he kept on reverting all my edits. I've warned him on his empty talk page as well, but he kept on his edit warring. I think he should be blocked for a considerable ammount of time, because it seems that after a 24h block, he will continue his disruptive editing. --Panosgatto (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Iterresise reported by User:Chronus (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

The user insists on simply deleting, without any prior discussion or consensus, various demographic tables from country articles (see here, here, here, here, etc). He has already been warned by user (see here and here) about this kind of destabilizing behavior and about the promotion of edit wars, but he insists on this kind of attitude. I request some kind of administrative intervention, as the previous warnings have not had any effect. Chronus (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

User:RedBull1984 reported by User:Bolgarhistory (Result: Malformed)
User being reported:

The user is waging ideologic edit war in articles about Tatarstan: look at his contributions. And for example,, ,. Besides I had noticed that administrators doesn't disallow him to do it. His edits are not equal to consensual versions of articles. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Xselant reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Music */ Added musical influences which ARE important to mention and not "trivia""
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1098378096 by Drmies (talk)"
 * 3)  "Added Activism section"
 * 4)  "Added singer-songwriter description with a source because it has been agreed on the talk page that the discography should be included. It makes no sense to include the discography without using the description of a singer"
 * 5)  "Added details about musical influences"
 * 1)  "Added details about musical influences"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to edit war to include challenged material despite no consensus on the page. Uses also refuses to properly communicate. They think that posting a couple comments means they are allowed to repeatedly reinsert the material. Has been warned multiple times, which they have removed from their talk page. And that's their right, but still. Amaury • 18:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * for disruption including revert warring at this noticeboard. signed,Rosguill talk 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Speun reported by User:Mahan Matin (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. in 15 July 2022, User:Speun reverts the article Germany national football team 3 times:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Mahan Matin (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * He has not made the same revert more than three times. Not yet Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * hi; This user, other than these three items; two revert of information the previous day and one revert  a few days before. Mahan Matin (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those edits were rightfully as per consensus reverted. It was also over multiple days overall. I have since the beginning told you that this very topic about youth honors on senior articles was discussed on the football project talkpage. Everywbody agreed that post 1992 olympics does not belong on senior articles. Some common sense would tell you, that you should not add medals to a team that did not win said medal. There already is an article for u23 olympic teams, and they are listed on those respective articles. No need to add them to senior articles. It has nothing to do with my opinion or personal viewpoint.. i simply reverted in good faith as per consensus. I kept giving edit reasons to why it was reverted as well, also to you. I told you to open up the discussion again on the footballproject talkpage, if you want youth honors on senior articles. It was never up to me personally, as i consulted everybody in there before removing them. Here Archive 152. Speun (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

User:RedBull1984 reported by User:Bolgarhistory (Result: Both users, and a third, blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:

The user is waging ideologic edit war in articles about Tatarstan: look at his contributions. And for example,, ,. Besides I had noticed that administrators doesn't disallow him to do it. His edits are not equal to consensual versions of articles. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The user does not go to the discussion and continues to wage a war of edits. And simply responds in a rude way, violating the rules of ethical behavior: Tatars in the question of the president should understand that "you will not breathe enough before you die." On what basis do they arrange a war of edits? Where?! In the English Wikipedia, your "Latin alphabet" is not fucking needed by anyone.--Ilnur efende (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then the user started insulting that I was a blind Tatar nationalist.--Ilnur efende (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, they said that you were blinded by Tatar nationalism, which isn't exactly the same as being called a "blind Tatar nationalist". M.Bitton (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it must be perceived as good phrase. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was, but when quoting someone you have to make sure to stick as closely as humanly possible to what they said. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest a boomerang, see --Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , please explain by rules, why has the user permissions to do editing wars? I want another administrators will see how you doesn't react to it. I think you are not neutral. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, the user who started the thermonuclear war of edits with the deletion of the text added three years ago has not even been warned, and is protected by this administrator. Ilnur efende (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have an impression that you woudn't like to aplly sanctions to . --Bolgarhistory (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The instructions at the top of this page mandate that you notify RedBull1984 of this complaint. Please do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So I would like this case will be considered by the neutral administrator. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The edit warring aside, the Latin version of the name is unsourced and unattributable (I couldn't find any RS for it). M.Bitton (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , the Latin version in the Tatar langunage is not main topic of my request. We are talking about user's behavior. But for example, it is used in Finland. I can find many sources about the Latin version. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand, but if it's unsourced (btw, it's not in the above source), then the whole edit war becomes futile. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If we think in this way a lot of transcriptions haven't a source. I can not find a source about names in the Cyrillic version. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you try Google books? Plenty of RS supporting the Cyrillic version. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are not official documents. Mentioning a person in books and media is not an authoritative source about his name's writing. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, but that's irrelevant because the name that you want to add is unsourced. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my English. Therefore, I will be brief. "Нафиг" in Russian is not an offensive word, unlike fuck in English.  I didn't write "blind nationalist". I didn't write "fuck". RedBull1984 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In Russian the word "нафиг" is also offensive like the "fucking" in English. It can not be used in a discussion. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * for edit warring over this across multiple articles; the discussion above should have happened instead, then at least it would have just been another angry discussion. For the same reason I have blocked for the same time period, specifically for a 3RR vio on the article in question, but one compounded by similar revert-warring with RedBull1984 on multiple articles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Alenk06 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Note an wp:spa that has in fact blown though 3RR. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * One of a series of SPAs that are probably socks. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 11:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * . Likely sock of EsterDay. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Cukrakalnis and User:Marcelus reported by User:Szmenderowiecki (Result: Both users pblocked for two weeks)
Page:

Users being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: (16 March 2022)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Cukrakalnis Marcelus
 * 1) 30 June 2022
 * 2) 30 June 2022
 * 3) 1 July 2022
 * 4) 1 July 2022
 * 5) 1 July 2022
 * 6) 1 July 2022
 * 7) 1 July 2022
 * 8) 4 July 2022
 * 9) 7 July 2022
 * 10) 8 July 2022
 * 11) 8 July 2022
 * 12) 8 July 2022
 * 13) 12 July 2022
 * 14) 13 July 2022
 * 15) 13 July 2022
 * 16) 15 July 2022
 * 17) 16 July 2022
 * 1) 30 June 2022
 * 2) 30 June 2022
 * 3) 1 July 2022
 * 4) 1 July 2022
 * 5) 1 July 2022
 * 6) 1 July 2022
 * 7) 1 July 2022
 * 8) 8 July 2022
 * 9) 8 July 2022
 * 10) 8 July 2022
 * 11) 9 July 2022
 * 12) 13 July 2022
 * 13) 13 July 2022
 * 14) 13 July 2022
 * 15) 16 July 2022
 * 16) 16 July 2022
 * 17) 16 July 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussions on talk page from this section on; ultimately did not prevent edit-warring behaviour on either side, even during discussions, as the last comments were on 8 July and the dispute still continued.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Cukrakalnis, Marcelus

Comments: A severe case of edit warring about a (Lithuanian? Polish? Polish-Lithuanian? Lithuanian-Polish?) priest about, well, his nationality. Both-sided indef blocks from that article is IMHO a minimum; haven't analysed behaviour in other articles. Marcelus posted to ANI on 8 July (no response). Dispute spilt to RSN on 16 July (both went on to argue who started edit warring). I come here from RSN after having noticed that mess.

Added: It is also apparent that the contact isn't going smoothly between the users and is too frequently about disputes of who is right, so interaction bans may also be considered (though I don't insist, I leave it for admins to decide). The users seem also to be reverting Lithuanian names to Polish names, and vice versa, regardless of the merits of such reverts.

( to be forwarded to ArbCom ) Explain how did you find that page User:Szmenderowiecki ? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  23:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment by GizzyCatBella
 * What exactly is being reported to ArbCom...and why?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Private continued correspondence regarding Szmenderowiecki account. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how these unspecified allegations against the reporter are at all helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 I know. You can’t see it without knowing the details behind it. Only ArbCom is familiar with it, as of now.
 * The sudden appearance of Szmenderowiecki here who filed this report, for what it appears, after seeing me asking for a page protection is separate issue. Perhaps ArbCom will share with you the details, if you're interested. It might be actually useful to have experienced users looking into it. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I was on RSN, and noticed a thread about the article, in which I commented as it appeared similar to an RSN discussion I submitted my comment to some time earlier. At the same time, I noted accusations of edit warring, which I started to investigate, and came to the conclusion that that was way too much. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Szmenderowiecki You didn’t see this ?? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I just posted the above today. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  00:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You Szmenderowiecki  never edited that page before  - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about your protection request until you pointed that to me just right now, so if you suggest that it is somehow related, no, that's totally independent of your actions, as I haven't tracked them at all (neither your edits nor the RPP page). One user may request protection of a page, another may pursue sanctions against editwarring users, and there needn't be any sort of conspiracy in it or any malicious intent. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Both users pblocked for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Szmenderowiecki, what does Previous version reverted to: exactly mean? I understand that the version WP:STABLE must be reverted to, but that has not happened yet and I was wondering whether that was because I misunderstood something.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you were both reverting each other, I posted whatever last version was stable. I'm not exactly sure if this is what I should have pasted there, but for me it looked like the most intuitive option. I certainly do not intend to mean that this is the true/correct version of how the article should look like, and WP:STABLE says that it is up to admin's discretion to lock the article at a stable version - I am not one. There is an active RSN discussion, which you can join. You can still use the article's talk. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Acousmana reported by User:Springee (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  First restoration, prior to discussion
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  Edit warring notice for an unrelated page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion initiated after initial restoration.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

This article is subject to a 1RR limit. This editor has not violated the 1RR bright line however, they have engaged in a slow edit war by restoring the same disputed content 3 times. During the second and third restoration it should have been clear that the talk page discussion did not support a consensus to include the disputed content. Contrary to NOCON (a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit) the editor argues consensus is required to reject and content should stay in place until a consensus to reject is established. I'm not seeking a block but reversion and warning to not restore until there is a clear consensus. Springee (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Reality is there is no "edit war" here, probably best view the ongoing dicussion, that multiple editors have contributed to, concerning the inclusion of properly sourced content that the listing editor finds objectionable. As for any other accusations of "warring" by this editor, again, not real, the edit summaries speak for themselves. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 01:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The use of low quality sources to establish weight for inclusion is one of the points disputed by other editors (not just myself). Springee (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This comment at the end of the current discussion also suggests BATTLEGROUND thinking . Springee (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * engaging in accusations of edit warring, rather than providing rational argumentation for why properly sourced content should be excluded, is classic 'BATTLEGROUND' behaviour. As is this attempt at stirring the pot. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 01:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If "the edit summaries speak for themselves", then I'm concerned that you're re-adding material that is still under discussion when no consensus to add it has been reached. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * apologies, to clarify, "the edit summaries speak for themselves" is in the context of the unrelated accusation of edit warring on the article Zuby that has been bolted on here; a clear rational for the Peterson content inclusion is in the talk page discussion.<b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 02:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Zuby issue is mentioned here to show that you have awareness of edit warring policies and 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry, I don't follow. The accusation of breaking 1R on Peterson is not borne out with evidence, and the last contribution added 2 new WP:RS cites to shore up sourcing, it wasn't a "revert". <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 02:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's technically a revert, because you added the same material, even though you added additional sources. It's in that weird land of edge cases. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but we have sourcing that is WP:RS and more than adequate in the context of what's being discussed, this is being willfully ignored by the listing party. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 02:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I see legitimate concerns about sourcing being raised at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverage of internet personality, in relevant sections of RS publications, including Washington Examiner, Newsweek, and Independent are to my mind adequate given both the context and miniscule size of the content added. On balance, it seems due. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 02:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A quick look at WP:Perennial sources shows that there is no consensus on whether the Washington Examiner is reliable and that Newsweek is broadly considered unreliable. —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did consult perennial list prior to additions, states Newsweek is context dependent. Both Newsweek & Washington Examiner state verifiable information, and on the whole the coverage is neutral: facts, nothing more. Taken together, the sources are sufficient for this small mention, one that augments the matter of Peterson's misgendering of Page. I'm not seeing a substantive argument not to include mention other than "no consensus". My reading is that certain editors don't like it, nothing more. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 10:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note also WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which is stricter than WP:ONUS in general. Contentious material about a living person sourced to bad sources (video game websites, etc.), which four separate editors have expressed an objection to on the talk page, is inappropriate to slow-motion edit war over. Endwise (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, there is no consensus in said Talk discussion that this material is contentious, and one of the four separate editors favoring removal has been topic-banned as fallout from that discussion. Just for context. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the material isn't contentious as we normally use the term in blp situations. However DUE is still in the area of NOCON. The topic banned editor was in good standing when they objected so, in addition to being wp:gravedancing, the mention here is irrelevant. Springee (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You think it is irrelevant that the editor in question was topic-banned as a result of the conversation that began - and largely took place - in that Talk section? I think it should be admin who evaluate that, not yourself - especially after you tried and failed to detourne the AE discussion into a weirdly directed BOOMERANG at me (weirdly directed because I wasn't a party to the ARE). Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Steven Weaven reported by User:Wiae (Result: Pblocked from article)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Steven Bartlett (businessman)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "justify content removal"

Comments:

Seems to be a single-purpose account engaged in a slow-motion edit war to coatrack the titles of newspaper articles into Steven Bartlett (businessman). User makes no attempt to transform these into encyclopedic text, and seemingly ignores the concerns of other editors raising coatrack issues with what is included. User's reverts include a spurious claim that I and other Wikipedia editors are actively censoring the article on the subject's behalf. As for discussion, user does not seem inclined to collaborate (sarcastic response to good-faith admin removal of copyrighted text; threat to go to the national press unless edits remain in article). Probably WP:NOTHERE. /wiae /tlk  10:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And another reversion. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 17:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Partial blocked from relevant article. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:2800:484:7393:3CAE:61E9:D985:8D0A:5DA1 reported by User:BOZ (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

IP user is adding trivial information with dubious sourcing. Their IP address keeps changing, so I did not attempt discussion on their talk page or warn them about this discussion, my apologies if I did something wrong in that regard. Also, I acknowledge that I probably reverted too many times and should have reported them earlier. It looks like they have been edit warring on other articles as well. BOZ (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The /64 range, that is. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Don_Rechtman reported by User:Booksofsatmar (Result: Both blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Booksofsatmar (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You must notify any editor you report here on their Talk page. You have not done so.  You may use    to do so. See the notice at the top of the page.  Please note that it appears that you also may have exceeded 3RR unless the editor's edits were obvious vandalism. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 21:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Boomerang for OP. Not only have they violated WP:3RR themselves, but given that they're adding the contested text they're ignoring WP:BRD and WP:QUO. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 21:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one of them is on the talk page, and there is unanimous agreement on the talk page for the inclusion. But both of these editors should be article blocked for violating WP:A/I/PIA. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I would also bet that Don Rechtman is <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC) NableezyNableezy
 * Information on the WP:A/I/PIA sanctions and their applicability to this page were not included on the article's Talk page . While both editors violated 3RR, not sure they can be held responsible for violations of sanctions that were not noted at this article when they did so. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Don_Rechtman was informed of the sanctions at 14:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC). Continued to edit in the topic. Regardless, both users should be partially blocked from the article and made to understand that editing about the Arab-Israeli topic, anywhere in article space, is prohibited until they are extended-confirmed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand, and I apologize that I may not have done this procedure properly, although I did follow the instructions as I understood them and did notify the editor. Thank you for your help with this situation. Booksofsatmar (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You, but you did not notify the other editor that you had filed a report here, which is required. Also, you may wish to address your having also violated 3RR and the discretionary sanctions discussed above. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 02:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

as POV-pushing single-purpose accounts. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Should add while youre whacking moles. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:David_Eppstein reported by User:Io1026 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

I have tried to incorporate some text on practical applications of the convex hull relevant for students/researchers in physics, chemistry, and materials science. My additions were reverted four times by David_Eppstein claiming REFSPAM. I attempted to revise the content addition and requested his feedback. His comments were largely out-of-scope, as he now suggested the content was too specialized for the page. I made a good-faith effort to justify the importance of connecting these theoretical concepts to concrete ab-initio discoveries, such as the case for the Heusler magnets: one of the first discovered by computational approaches. This connection to thermodynamics and materials science is not included in the section and is what distinguishes it from raw mathematical modeling. Based on the discussion, I limited my addition a reference that reviews several of such convex-hull applications in materials science, which was again reverted on the basis of REFSPAM. It appears to me from the discussion that REFSPAM is no longer the concern, but it is instead one on content. David_Eppstein cannot be only arbiter deciding the legitimacy of content additions, especially since his comments suggest that this is out of his area of expertise. I find these actions to be very biased and exclusionary, and I hope this forum can remain open to other informed inputs. Io1026 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Io1026
 * It's low-quality WP:REFSPAM, endangering the article's Good Article status. The promoter of this material has failed to build consensus on the talk page for pushing it into the article, and instead keeps trying to push it without consensus. Given that my most recent undo of this same spam-pusher happened over two weeks after the previous one, no 3RR attention is needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus cannot be achieved single-handedly. Please feel free to continue the discussion in your talk or stop micromanaging content outside of your area. Io1026 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any justification? Io1026 (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Gweilo60 reported by User:NoGhost (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Apologies if this is not the correct forum for reporting. User has been continually reverting edits on the article Jiujiang for the last few weeks to include a photo that they have taken that is not representative of the article's subject. I have tried discussing with the user first in the edit summaries, then on the user's talk page , before it subsequently moved to my talk page. I have tried suggesting upwards of five alternative and more representative photos from the Commons category for Jiujiang  but the user has suggested numerous times that all other photos (that he hasn't taken) are fake, not genuine, or should be removed. It seems very trivial, but I'm not sure what other options are present to prevent Gweilo60 from continually reverting to their own photo. Thank you for any assistance or suggestions. -NoGhost (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User:FrankensteinsDad reported by User:Sariel Xilo (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop vandalising the site. I have supplied more than ten references. You are the one engaging in an editing war."
 * 2)  "added sources as requested"
 * 3)  "The New York Post is the country's longest running newspaper. You can't disparage it just because you personally disagree with its policies. If you doubt the accuracy of the story, just ask Mr. Rucka and he will confirm it.Undid revision 1097809057 by Sariel Xilo (talk)"
 * 4)  "ok I removed the Sun as a reference at your request. But there are still ten other references that are reliable. Hopefully this will resolve the issue"
 * 5)  "adding more reference sources as requested including sites showing photographic evidence of the arrests"
 * 6)  "Please stop deleting accurate sourced information or I will report you for vandalism. Obviously you have a personal connection to Greg Rucka. Stop censoring proven facts!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* July 2022 */ Please do not WP:EDITWAR; your source is the WP:NYPOST and not the NYT"
 * 2)   "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Greg Rucka."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* July 2022 */ Please do not WP:EDITWAR; your source is the WP:NYPOST and not the NYT"
 * 2)   "/* Son's arrest */ new section"

Comments:

The user has been adding content to both Greg Rucka & Jen Van Meter about their son. The user reverted an IP account which removed the content on July 12 which I reverted. The user then reverted me on July 16 & has continued to revert my removals of the content within the last 24 hours. The original source was the New York Post & the user has refused to accept multiple explanations of why that is an unreliable source. The latest attempt at restoring this information now cites deprecated sources such as Daily Mail and The Sun along with some blogs. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I've supplied a total of 11 different references to support the statement I added to the article. Sariel is now telling me that any of the references I supply are invalid. How is that possible!? Some sources actually show photographs of the individual's mug shot at the time of his arrest. I just listed a simple statement of fact to the article which pertains to the man's personal life and should be a part of the article. The man was arrested for rioting....period! I deleted the NY Post and the Sun as sources as she requested, and replaced them with at least 9 other source references. Why is this person erasing all of my contributions? I'm the one supplying multiple reference sources, she is just deleting stuff randomly. I suspect this person has an intimate personal connection to the subject of the article. Please investigate the connection? Thank you for your aid in this matter. FrankensteinsDad (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no connection to Rucka or Van Meter; their son isn't a notable person so I've removed this content due to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE & WP:BLPREMOVE. Two other editors removed the content after me and the user has reverted that. I've updated the above list. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Added a link above to a discussion another editor started on the content; I've replied there as well. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * User is continuing to revert other editors on the page. Added link above. Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This Sariel person is obviously involved personally with the subjecrt of this article. She sees that I am exposing her relationship to this person so she is asking other editors to get involved to obfuscate her own connection to Greg Rucka. These other people are just getting involved now to do her a favor, to help prevent her from getting in trouble for vandalism. What she is doing is pure censorship, acting as a protector for Greg Rucka's page. I'm providing multiple references for every sentence I submit, while she is just randomly erasing my submissions REGARDLESS of the fact that I've provided at least 8 reference sources! Please investigate her connection to Greg Rucka and you will see that she is protecting his page from unwanted information, true or not.  That's called censorship! FrankensteinsDad (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that his son travelled 3,000 miles to riot and vandalise stores in NYC to the point where the police had to arrest him is a very interesting fact pertaining to Greg Rucka's life story, in that it shows what kind of children he has raised! The whole point of the Rucka article is to tell Greg Rucka's story.....his work, his early life, the article even mentions his wife and kids. But curiously nothing at all is mentioned about this BIZARRE criminal act on the part of his son, even though the incident was surely a life-changing event for the entire Rucka family. Why is that? I thought a wiki article is supposed to feature the ENTIRE STORY about a subject, and not be censored and cleansed of any and all derogatory facts and events. This woman is trying to sanitize the article for Greg Rucka, who is undoubtedly a close friend or relative of hers. Otherwise she wouldn't get so involved. FrankensteinsDad (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * FD has been editing against consensus and policy (see WP:NYPOST) and failed to assume good faith by accusing Sariel of having a connection to the article subject simply because of their reverts. This all adds up to tendentious editing that rates the timeout. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Amaury reported by User:Xselant (Result: No violation; Xselant blocked one week)
Page:

User:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Hawke&oldid=1099227936
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Hawke&oldid=1096738724
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Hawke&oldid=1096738490
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maya_Hawke&oldid=1096738237

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amaury&action=history

Comments:The user has been undoing any productive, well-sourced edits on Maya Hawke without good reason while accusing anyone that disagrees with them as "edit-warring". They have been doing this for 2 weeks now on the same page.


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This report is clearly in retaliation to Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive455 and should not have much attention paid to it. However, they were literally blocked for this the other day and still decided to reinsert the exact same content that got them blocked. I am leaving the page alone, but this is clearly a problematic user who has no intention of changing their problematic behavior. Also, I have this page on my watchlist, so it doesn't really matter for me personally, but where was my required notice that this report was filed? Amaury • 17:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Xselant for one week for renewing the same edit war for which they were recently blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 merci!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User:‎2a04:4a43:4d8f:d668:8869:67b9:f292:f84b reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Restores MOS:CONTEXTBIO breaching edit after being reverted.
 * 2)  Restores low quality source adding personal details about the individuals religion, violating WP:BLP.
 * 3)  Once again restored the same low quality BLP material, at this point I had reached three reverts so did not revert.
 * 4)  Breaks the three revert rule.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Asking to use talk page included in notice.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

User edit warring on a BLP article to include ″Chechen-born″ breaching the manual of style cited in my reverts, and also edit warring to include personal details regarding religion citing a questionable source not fit for a BLP. I stopped reverting because it was clear the user is just going to continue brute forcing their edits, which they did after being reverted by another editor, violating the 3RR. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire /64 range. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

User:BMA-Nation2020 reported by User:Indagate (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Illumination_productions&oldid=1098678988

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [1099021536]
 * 2) [1099052468]
 * 3) [1099054992]
 * 4) [1099056466]
 * 5) [1099063843]
 * 6) [1099064838]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABMA-Nation2020&type=revision&diff=1099057278&oldid=1098703408

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_Illumination_productions

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User_talk:BMA-Nation2020

Comments:


 * Involved editor here; I request anyone reviewing this to also look at BMA-Nation2020's edit summaries - pretty aggressive and demonstrating clear OWNership of the article, most notably the recent i'm not gonna leave it like that! I want it like this.. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I thought that by some of what they said in talk page discussion, "it stays like it is", "it is final", and "no. we're keeping it like that and that's final. no more changes to it". Thanks, Indagate (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * i give up. you people won't listen and i put it back the way it was. you guys wouldn't live it alone and i was only trying to make it different than the others. i don't wanna be blocked or anything. Just want things to leave it as it be. not to make things worry for myself. :( BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said in the discussion, we're all trying to make it best it can be, encyclopedic articles shouldn't be different to each other just because. Self-revert at end is good but you made a further five reverts after I made this report. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Note to blocking admin, one of 's first edits after block was restoring their edit to List of Illumination productions, not the previous status quo or version from discussion but version they preferred, they didn't rejoin discussion either. . Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Warned user. If this continues drop me a line and I will indef them. This is getting old. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Indagate (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Rootone reported by User:Evackost (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: Rootone has repeatedly reverted edits that were marked as intended to fix WP:NPOV and WP:Assert issues on pages releated to NXIVM. Rootone demands all these pages simply assert NXIVM is a cult without any further explanation or attribution (even though there's simply no objectivity whatsoever to it). I've repeatedly tried to highlight the problems of this by showing that this approach isn't even allowed on much more well known "cults." The edits just get reverted back to Rootone's preference without discussion or attempts to come to consensus.
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Anonymous130112 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1099582082 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1099446255 by R Prazeres (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1099445262 by R Prazeres (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* July 2022 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was previously blocked for the exact same kind of behaviour on the same article in March 2022. Their only response so far has been this, which suggests they have no intention of engaging in productive discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * – 4 days. This is a repeat of the March edit war, per the above note. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)