Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive457

User:Chrisanthusjohn reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "source does not mention German heritage"
 * 2)  "grammar"
 * 3)  "removed people who appear to have no connection with Sterzel from "see also" section, added Matthew Tye who is indeed an associated YouTuber"
 * 4)  "Removed information from potentially unreliable source - it appears that interested parties can actually buy advertising or marketing packages that may include articles, meaning that the source would not be truly independent of the subject of the article - from that's mags about page: "We provide an array of digital advertising solutions, with a commitment to establishing the most productive and efficient way to ensure maximum exposure""
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1103706014 by Praxidicae (talk) Please read my edit summaries below - I have indicated exact reasons for removal of each piece of informatoin"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1103690335 by Praxidicae (talk) reverted wholesale reversion of unreliable information per WP:RS and otherwise unsourced promotional material per WP:NOT soapbox/means of promotion"
 * 7)  "the people listed under "See Also" appear to have no affiliation with Sterzel, apart from being Chinese internet celebrities of which there are many"
 * 8)  "edited for grammar"
 * 9)  "removed unsourced information - source failed to load"
 * 10)  "removed unsourced information - source failed to load"
 * 11)  "neither source mentions German heritage"
 * 12)  "removed unsourced information - source failed to load"
 * 13)  "neither source mentions him "moving to China in his mid-twenties" - could be worked out based on date of article and other contextual information I suppose but that would be WP:OR and WP:SYN"
 * 14)  "Removed information from potentially unreliable source - it appears that interested parties can actually buy advertising or marketing packages that may include articles, meaning that the source would not be truly independent of the subject of the article - from that's mags about page: "We provide an array of digital advertising solutions, with a commitment to establishing the most productive and efficient way to ensure maximum exposure""
 * 15)  "removed information from unreliable source - per WP:RSP "Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons.""
 * 16)  "removed unsourced information"
 * 17)  "added Tye to See also section"
 * 18)  "removed original research & uncited information, edited text to match information given in source"
 * 19)  "added back info that was mistakenly deleted"
 * 1)  "removed original research & uncited information, edited text to match information given in source"
 * 2)  "added back info that was mistakenly deleted"
 * 1)  "added back info that was mistakenly deleted"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Censorship of material on Winston Sterzel."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Winston Sterzel."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* sources */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* sources */"

Comments:

Despite discussions on my talk page, their talk page and the articles talk page, they are still removing sourced content and not engaging in consensus building at the actual talk page, instead removing sourced information because they are dead links (which I've linked to the archived version on the talk page) that support the statements. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And even in the process of filing this, they've continued removing information that was also discussed at the AFD(s). PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Further clarification:
 * Per WP:STATUSQUO - "Exceptions to this recommendation include living persons – Always remove unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material. If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious."
 * Regarding my most recent edits:
 * I was trying to re-insert my contributions that were caught up in the mass revert without removing the materials sourced only by dead links (which I agree were my mistake) per WP:REVONLY. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not removing sourced content any longer, only trying to revert the page to a position where the information from dead links are restored (I misunderstood the policy on dead links and am no longer removing information from sourced but dead links), only removing information that is not in the sources given. Please read the sources and my edits - I am only removing information that is not in the source given as well as removing information from one unreliable-looking source. That's it. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was initially under the impression that information sourced with dead links counted as unsourced information and should be removed. Honest mistake. As soon as that was pointed out to me, I stopped removing information from dead links and only removed information that was either not in the source given or in one case from an unreliable source. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was editing in good faith removing what I (incorrectly) thought counted as unsourced information. I was accused of censorship on my talk page, which I didn't take seriously as a warning because I wasn't trying to censor anything. I was also under the impression that the 3RR did not apply as stringently for BLP articles. I was trying to follow the rule "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" per WP:BLP Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The material isn't contentious and isn't an exemption. I suggest you revert yourself. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Revert which edits specifically? None of my most recent edits have been removing information from dead links (what I initially got accused of "censorship" for). The other edits are trying to reconcile the information in the article with the information in the source given. Please read the sources and the information to check for yourself. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To me the material appeared as soap-boxing/self-promotional material and therefore seemed contentious. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

User:47.40.118.147 reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: Semi-protected 3 months; subsequently blocked the IP for 48 hours for disruption)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "User was warned for Edit waring. Please use the talk page to discuss changing the commonly accepted definition by NBER that other banks use to announce a recession. Please do not continue to edit war thank you."
 * 2)  "The Bank of England Also uses the NBER definition, which most modern banks are based on. it is the commonly accepted definition. User is edit waring and politically motivated to remove NBER as the commonly accepted definition"
 * 3)  "100% Commonly accepted, It only wasn't commonly accepted when a certain US president before midterm elections spun inflation out of control, please use the discussion page to change it any further thank you. Reverting edits will result in a edit war warning."
 * 4)  "Commonly accepted definition of a recession."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on User talk:Hey man im josh."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is WP:POVPUSHING, quick to lash out and accuse anybody of disagreeing with them as doing so for political reasons, and has violated WP:3RR while threatening to warn users for edit warring if their preferred version is reverted. They also did not want to wait until a talk page discussion had been completed to make their preferred change. WP:NOTHERE. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "Attempts to resolve" more like you didn't use the talk page when presented with evidence that supports my claim and instead went on attacking me directly. You have STILL yet to present a single shred of evidence to support your claim its not commonly accepted. 47.40.118.147 (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please be clear on how I attacked you directly, as I don't see that. I reverted your original edit and said I didn't think it was necessarily commonly accepted. You responded by threatening to issue an edit war warning against me. You've repeatedly accused me of edit warring but the onus and you're repeatedly accusing me of being politically motivated. Whether you're correct in your edit is up for discussion (one link does not make something "commonly accepted"), but fact of the matter is you've violated the WP:3RR. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The user has posted an edit warring warning to my page four times now, each time I've removed it (as it was issued inappropriately and while not using the template properly)., , ,
 * They've also I'd call harassment on my talk page, calling me a whiney little libtard and more and they're also politically ranting on another user's talk page . Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I now have blocked the IP for disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:176.46.113.248 reported by User:Spaully (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Original addition
 * 2) Revert 1
 * 3) Revert 2
 * 4) Revert 3
 * 5) Revert 4 - Note this is by a different IP, with no other previous edits, however with the same edit summary style and continuing the same discussion, and at the same time as a reply on the talk page.

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 is a little difficult as I obviously do not have the tools to prove whether the second IP is the same person, but on face value this seems likely. Thank you for looking into this and happy to talk any advice on this, hopefully the IP user will engage properly in the talk page discussion. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 12:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both IPs blocked for a week for edit-warring and generally bizarre edits. They're clearly the same person. What on earth is this "blood ritual" business?  Acroterion   (talk)   12:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've siteblocked because of the tendentious nature of their behavior on the talkpage and the generally strange nature of their repeated edits, which do not lend me much confidence that they're going to contribute collegially. If it had been more potentially helpful edits, I would have done a partial block, but their behavior is veering into disruption.   Acroterion   (talk)   12:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey. I'm quite aware of the danger of throwing around mental health diagnoses, particularly when used to dismiss people's arguments, but it's worth bearing in mind some of the the symptoms of mania, hypomania include things like loose associations of ideas, overconfidence and "pressure of speech". These symptoms can be one-off, episodic or reduced through medication, or caused by drugs (whether prescribed as medication or obtained illicitly). People who are experiencing such symptoms are likely to be more interested in topics surrounding psychiatry. The effect of this is that judgments of character of those who are exhibiting such behaviours may be valid for shorter periods of time than is true in general, so there is potentially an argument for month-long rather than year-ong or permanent blocks should issues continue. (Note that I reverted some the edits are raised the issue on the medicine project). Talpedia (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Unbh reported by User:MaxBrowne2 (Result: Protected)
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: Purely diruptive edit warring based on misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL to past events, and IDHT behaviour when explained that the point of the example is to illustrate a chess theme, not to keep a historical record. Has invented a non-existent rule that only moves that were physically played on a chess board are valid examples.


 * No I'm asking you to cite sources for your OR. Not inventing rules. Your edits about what could have happened in these  games are entirely speculative and your are not providing sources. You can illustrate with examples of something that happened, with sources, but not with your own projections of how a game could have played out that didn't happen and without providing any sources that support this analysis.
 * This editor seems to suffer from WP:OWN issues when asked toprovide sources and has also been exceedingly rude in edit summaries https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxBrowne2&diff=prev&oldid=1103755472 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Promotion_(chess)&diff=prev&oldid=1103579102 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxBrowne2&diff=prev&oldid=1103612258 among many others
 * Bottom line is you blatantly violated WP:3RR which is a bright line. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So have you if you want bright lines, and in fact before I did. And I haven't been outrageously rude along the wayUnbh (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If I get a boomerang for rudeness so be it. It's also extremely rude to repeatedly template people who ask you not to, instead of using your own words. You are an extremely disruptive editor who edit wars on multiple articles and removes a lot of good content for spurious reasons. As for WP:OWN, I don't feel any particular attachment to this article, but I will defend it from editors like you who clearly have little understanding of the subject matter. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Fully protected and I have put the article back to what appears to be the last semi-stable version before the edit-war. You've got two weeks to discuss it. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User:202.63.71.241 reported by User:Tamzin (Result: Semiprotections)
Pages: User being reported: (previously )

Previous version reverted to:
 * At Puberty blocker:
 * At Chemical castration:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At Puberty blocker: At Chemical castration:
 * 1) [no ES ]
 * 2) [generic ES ]
 * 3) [generic ES ]
 * 4) This does not require consensus of wiki contributors. As per the provided source these drugs are used for chemical castration of sex offenders. This is a simple statement of fact listed alongside other standard medical uses (e.g. endometriosis, prostate cancer)
 * 1) [generic ES ]
 * 2) [generic ES ] (also rvs an unrelated intervening edit)
 * 3) [generic ES ]
 * 4) This is not a contentious issue. It is a basic statement of fact - as per the provided source (see Table 2 - Anti-androgens). It is normal medical practice to use these drugs as puberty blockers, and chemical castratants..

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * EW warning from me
 * 3RR warning from Sideswipe9th

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

Comments:

Two related edit wars, so I'm reporting both together. The IP is at (but not past) 3RR on both, but has been warned twice now and is expressly rejecting the idea that they must get consensus for their edits. I think at least some form of their edit to the Puberty blocker article is probably reasonable, but no editor is exempt from having to discuss proposed changes when another editor objects in good faith. And multiple editors have objected in good faith to these POV-tinted edits in a sensitive topic area.

125 and 202 are clearly the same person based on geolocation and behavior. 198.30.180.98 made the same edit once, but based on geolocation I think they're someone else. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 06:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Both articles indefinitely semiprotected under authority of WP:GENSEX. I'm logging this result in WP:DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User:FlantasyFlan reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1104115137 by Ccbls001 (talk) Second warning: Discuss in talk page before vandalizing"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1104114756 by Ccbls001 (talk) Discuss in talk page before vandalizing page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1104114364 by KD0710 (talk) Discuss in talk page before making major edit."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1104113517 by EvergreenFir (talk) Please stop vandalizing. Discuss on talk page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1104113480 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 6)  "legally dead should be relegated as a detail, not used to say she's dead. nyt, cnn, npr still haven't said she's dead"
 * 7)  "Do not say she's dead until reliable sources (like AP, Reuters, CNN, etc.) clearly say she's dead."
 * 8)  "The Guardian relies on an Instagram post by a friend. Not sufficiently reliable. NYT, AP, Reuters haven't independently verified the claim yet."
 * 1)  "The Guardian relies on an Instagram post by a friend. Not sufficiently reliable. NYT, AP, Reuters haven't independently verified the claim yet."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* NOT dead as of 11 AM PDT Aug 12 */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022 (2) */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Footnote */ Reply"

Comments:

Hey. User EvergreenFir keeps vandalizing Anne Heche's page. They're trying to make the edit she's dead. The issue though is all the articles they're linking to are citing a single Instagram post by Heche's friend who alleges she's brain dead. Then EvergreenFir synthesizes that because under California's law brain death is death, they make the edit. I let them know SEVERAL times that they can't do this, as multiple reliable orgs (AP, CNN, NYT) still haven't declared Heche dead. EvergreenFir continued anyway in vandalizing the page. It's sad to see them resorting here, but I can't let them keep vandalizing all based on an unreliable claim. Thanks. FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I will direct you to WP:NPA regarding your repeated accusations of vandalism, which this is not.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't attack you personally. I merely stated that you vandalized the page, as you kept changing the content of the page without regards to verifiability and despite multiple warnings. Multiple news orgs (ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, Fox News, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, BBC, CBC, etc.) have not declared Heche dead. At all. So to cite The Guardian's article, which relies on a single Instagram post that is an allegation by a friend that Heche is brain dead, does not meet W:RS. FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have linked WP:ASPERSIONS, not NPA though repeated accusations of vandalism can count as personal attacks.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * . This block would have been shorter (and maybe partial) if the edit-warring wasn't compounded by repeated baseless accusations of vandalism against fellow editors ( etc.) and a complete refusal to back down. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

User:4me689 reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1104163889 by 2806:105E:14:DAD2:7DAF:BACB:3005:3A57 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1104162214 by Polyamorph (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1104156383 by 2806:105E:14:DAD2:E54D:A95F:7D1:DDF8 (talk) then go to talk section"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1104143612 by 2806:105E:14:DAD2:E54D:A95F:7D1:DDF8 (talk) can we open our talk page section to talk about this"
 * 5)  "come on stop changing it"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1104022787 by Stephen (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

User reverted multiple editors to include their favoured image. User continued reverting on the page after opposing views were expressed on the article talk page. Polyamorph (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since the user agreed to stop reverting the article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Lllll0tss7 reported by User:GianluSport (Result: Declined – malformed report)
2022 European Championships:

Lllll0tss7:

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]

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

Comments:


 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just requested semi-protection, take a look at 2022 European Championships, I think you could just hand both of em a straight timeout without a new report. Zaathras (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The page is now semiprotected three days by User:Ymblanter. There is some dispute about medal totals. (See Talk:2022 European Championships). I'm leaving a note for User:Lllll0tss7 that they may be blocked if they revert again, unless they have received a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I accidentally fully protected this article for three days earlier today. Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:NewThere reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Sock 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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Already put sources on article's talk page and asked for the user to justify the reason they consider my sources as unreliable, which they never did. NewThere (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The sources the user added to the talk page after the fourth revert are not reliable and would never pass a RS evaluation. In addition, this edit repeats the pattern of edits of blocked users on that article. Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:OVERLINK, countries are not linked. That's why I reverted this edit. Plus, WP:BANREVERT says Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor. This specific edit was subsequently right, per the guideline Wikipedia sets. NewThere (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am afraid for a user with 60 edits you have too much knowledge of the policies and too little desire to comply with them. Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there anywhere a guideline saying only users with a minimum edit of ... are bound to know the policies of Wikipedia? NewThere (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's called WP:CIR. Ignorance is not an excuse, especially when you've been warned on your talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the other user which was repeatedly asked to justify about the verifiability of my sources and they just referred generally, without any clear evidence or linked guidelines, like I did. NewThere (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It isn't ymblanter or anyone else's job to spoonfeed you step by step why a source isn't reliable. The idea that some random blog or sites like famousbirthdays can be used is ridiculous and I think you should probably READ what peoples edit summaries say and also WP:RS. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They were the one doubting my sources though, thus their responsibility to justify their claims. Plus, I didn't only provide famousbirthdays as you can clearly see. NewThere (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, when someone tells you xyz isn't a reliable source, they don't need to spoon feed you why. Go read WP:RS and WP:RSN. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, no need to present it as a general matter of fact. NewThere (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources aren't reliable so the point is moot. You've now got at least 2 experienced editors explaining why. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, thought you wouldn't be able to "spoonfeed" me, per your above sayings. Thanks for the disposability. NewThere (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the sock (LTA).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Chimney Sweepa reported by User:Smartse (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

This user has been edit warring for weeks to include what could be a phishing link to the article, including 4 reverts today. If I wasn't involved, I'd probably indef, but a long or indef block on Alphabay would have the same effect. is a blatant sock too (currently blocked by for 7 days). SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeffed, with the caveat that they may be unblocked if they leave this article alone. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Tytygh55 reported by User:gsblo (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [1102763958]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1104030061
 * 2) 1103864501

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1104170043

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1104171962

Comments:

This user is inventing reasons for undoing my contributions on the "Apple Wallet" wiki page. The first undo was claimed as an “unnecessary section” with no discussion. The second undo, in less than 24 hours, was claimed because my contribution “lacks citations”. Before I restored (undo'ed the user's undo) my contributions I double checked each time to make sure my contributions were not against Wikipedia's policies.

I also noticed that in the article's Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apple_Wallet#%22Common_Wallet_Passes%22_should_not_be_on_this_page), I have not been able to substantiate the user's claims on Wikipedia content policy (bias, all or none required).

Upon further investigation, I noticed that this user appears to have a history of unconstructive editing going back to the account's creation in 2016, if I refer to the history of this user's Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tytygh55&action=history. Given the number of unconstructive editing, editing without consensus, and vandalism reports, I am bringing this user's activity and behavior to your attention. Gsblo (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have only provided evidence of two reverts. This, doesn't really qualify as edit warring and certainly won't lead to any admin action. You also appear to have accused the user of vandalism, which this is not. I suggest you discuss with the user to resolve you content dispute. Polyamorph (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

P.S. all content on Wikipedia must be cited. Uncited content can be removed by any user anytime. I have added an uncited section tag to the disputed content. Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User:反撥 reported by User:Hobomok (Result: Indeffed)
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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff at User's talk page

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

Comments:

User continues to add information to lead in violation of WP:NPOV, MOSLEAD, and WP:OR despite multiple reversions by two editors. As this is a new user, I attempted to reach out to them at their own talk page rather than the article in question, but I was met with user refusal to familiarize themselves with relevant policy. In the meantime, also attempted to discuss with this user, although they continued to edit war.Hobomok (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * under WP:NOTHERE. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indef doesn't mean forever, but they clearly have a mission for being here, and until an admin is convinced they get it, indef it is, as there is no period of time that is guaranteed to get the point across. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Au1001 reported by User:Suonii180 (Result: Blocked 24h for disruptive editing)
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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Incorrect formatting for years_active infobox parameter. I left links in my edit summary and on their talk page to Template:Infobox musical artist so the editor could see what formatting should be used, to WP:3RR to let them know about the three revert rule and asked them to take it to the talk page. The fourth revert was an IP address but it was soon after their last revert. I reverted a fourth time as the edit summary had an inappropriate personal attack and I began a discussion on the talk page with a notification to Au1001 and it was again reverted by the same IP address and I have left it at the current version. Suonii180 (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

for disruptive editing. On a pure EW standard, they didn't break 3RR, but their attitude more than made up for that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

User:2A00:A040:194:C4AF:14AF:E794:171E:E381 reported by User:YonasJH (Result: Range blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
 * 1)
 * 2)

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:

I don't have reliable internet, so my request is delayed. YonasJH (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * /64 range blocked for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

User:AidepikiwIV reported by User:Aspects (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  with no edit summary
 * 2)  with no edit summary
 * 3)  with no edit summary
 * 4)  with no edit summary forty minutes after edit warring notice

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: that was  that was removed forty minutes after edit warring notice.

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

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

Comments:

This user has four times in the past month and a half removed a file from the character's infobox without an edit summary. They rarely use any edit summaries, so there is no way to know why the file should be removed. I have reverted each of these with edit summaries of "rv unexplained file deletion", which usually the other editor if they still feel it should be removed explains with an edit summary, talk page message or starting a WP:FFD. After leaving the edit warring notice, they reverted again without an edit summary and removed the warning. Without explaining their actions to other editors, it looks like this editor is WP:NOTHERE to work collaboratively with other editors. Aspects (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . This is not the right venue for this. If you want the user blocked as NOTHERE, use WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

User:RaySmall88 and Special:Contributions/204.16.94.194 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Both blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  from
 * 2)  a citation to a criticism of an earlier paper by Turban, but and this time with text that is a BLP violation
 * 3)  after contributing below
 * 1)  after contributing below
 * 1)  after contributing below

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, however RaySmall88 was created during this time.

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

Comments:

This is a slightly weird filing, sorry for that. Also I recognise that this is not a 3RR issue, instead it is an edit war and scrutiny evasion issue. I have reason to believe the IP editor created RaySmall88 to avoid scrutiny and the 3RR limit. User RaySmall88 was created one minute after the edit that introduced the BLP violating text, and the account's first action was to restore it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The post is not a BLP issue. The post cites to Archives of Sexual Behavior, a peer reviewed article and it does not criticize personally.  The cited article points to flaws in the methodology, wikipedia readers should be apprised that there are potential issues with the cited study.  If this is a BLP violation, millions of other posts would have to come down. RaySmall88 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The BLP issue is in how you were describing Turban. There is also another issue with ; the paper you cited was in response to 2019 paper by Turban and not the 2022 paper. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Em apple reported by User:HLGallon (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Imphal&type=revision&diff=1104514375&oldid=1101737777]

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Imphal&diff=1104470728&oldid=1104377720
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Imphal&diff=1104500691&oldid=1104486837
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Imphal&diff=1104501694&oldid=1104501280
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Imphal&diff=1104507858&oldid=1104506587
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Imphal&diff=1104512351&oldid=1104510724
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Imphal&diff=1104512351&oldid=1104510724
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Imphal&diff=1104515633&oldid=1104514375

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Em_apple&oldid=1104517611

Comments:

User:Em Apple has repeatedly inserted tendentious edits, all designed to inflate the undue inportance of Korean involvement. The only references provided are tertiary Korean-langauge publications, which the user claims are the only sources available. User has made no attempt to discuss on the article's talk page. HLGallon (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The new user should have been warned about their edit-warring. I have nonetheless blocked the user for 48h because they also edit-warred while logged out.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Hey man im josh reported by User:Glordimes (Result: No violation; nominator blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Hello, Administrators, I am reporting disruptive behavior on the article (Poaching in Mayotte) by the user ( Hey man im josh several times since its creation and despite reliable sources and does not take into account the remarks that have been made on several occasions, I think it is better to look at the Neutral point of view and (Paid-contribution disclosure if that is the case.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [Diff/1104078011]
 * 2) [Diff/1104507735]
 * 3) [Diff/1104520953]
 * 4) [Diff/1104078006]

Glordimes (talk)

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:

I initially because it appeared to be a work in progress and not ready for main space yet. I thought this because it was a 1 sentence long article with multiple empty sections.

You then performed a cut (the cut) and paste move (the paste), something for which you had already from an admin named Liz. You from Liz based on this move.

Since you cut-and-paste moved the page back over the redirect (which was tagged with an A2 CSD tag) that was left in place of the main space article, it listed me as the creator of the article. I attempted to merge the page histories together so that you would be listed as the creator of the article instead of myself. If you'd read your talk page, you'd see in Liz's first warning to you that cut-and-paste moves are meant to be listed at Requests for history merge, which is what I did when I added the histmerge tags to the article. My was, in which you cited Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Notability. I then request believing you misunderstood and mistakenly deleted the tag. You have since again.

All of what I've done is pretty standard. Could you please explain how I've somehow made the article less neutral? Also, please explain how and why you think I'm somehow being paid?

Also, I still think the article belongs in the draft space. Once the history merge was completed I wasn't going to move it back, I didn't want to get into a conflict about it even though it belongs there. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have completed the history merge. The entire history is now present at Draft:Poaching in Mayotte, where the draft should stay until it is approved. —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see three reverts by, and if they were there, they were related to requesting a history merge, which is necessary from a copyright-compliance standpoint. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the nominator for 48 hours for disruptive editing. I contemplated longer because of their history, not to mention socking with some (now old) named accounts and (more recently) with IPs. They have been indeffed for sock puppetry on fr.wiki for quite some time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:12a9:5000:80f2:7b0:b01d:94fc reported by User:Dr.bobbs (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_(2022_film)&oldid=1104270702 [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]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:User talk:2600:4040:12A9:5000:80F2:7B0:B01D:94FC [diff]

Comments:

--Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is the edit warring?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear on how to identify where it is.
 * I made edits at
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_(2022_film)&oldid=1104270702
 * These were all undone, summarily dismissed all together as "unnecessary edits" at
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_(2022_film)&oldid=1104279200
 * I explained why this undoing was wrong, and constitutes vandalism in "Improvements undone" at
 * Talk:Fall (2022 film)
 * Since further edits have been done since, this undoing cannot be simply undone, forcing me to redo my improvements manually. However, I have not yet done that, for fear that the same user will undo my edits once again, and I will just have to redo my improvements manually once again.
 * I'm not sure if this constitutes "edit warring", but it is a serious problem in that it discourages all editors from making any edits for fear that their edits will be undone and all their effort totally wasted.
 * Note again that in this case, the other user posted false information, and then prevented me from correcting it with no explanation, just a simple undo. The other user obviously has the attitude that whatever they post must not be improved upon, even to correct false information.
 * Thank you for your interest in this. Dr.bobbs (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration but that does not constitute edit warring or vandalism. Please only use this board to report edit warring.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:पाटलिपुत्र (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Systematic reverting to own preferred version, this version evolving with time (documented below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Start at 09:07, 10 August 2022 End at 15:32, 10 August 2022
 * 1) 1st series of reverts (continuous)
 * (Revert of a photograph I added 2 days before
 * (Revert of a new sourced sentence from 3 hours before ) ES: "removing shameless Hindu nationalist anti-Islamic promotion."
 * (Revert of images added 2 days before ) ES: "please don't replace these images with ugly cutouts to make some dubious point."
 * (Revert of text added 2 days before ) ES: "removing silly promotion; no text please, especially not one promoting your monumental cottage industry adn where did the satvahana 24 spoked go?"
 * 1) 2nd series of reverts (continuous)
 * (Revert of image size change from 10 minutes before . Tag: Manual revert) ES: "please don't play this silly game"
 * (Revert of text added 15 minutes before )
 * 1) 3rd series of reverts (continuous)
 * (Revert of new text and image added 1 hour before ) ES: "Please don't dicker around with the pictures such a blatant fashion and then go to ANI crying 3RR"
 * 1) 4th revert
 * (Revert of text with reference and quote added 10 minutes before, Tag: Reverted) ES: "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र (talk): I will revert this because this is blatant anti-Islamism. I know you are baiting me to take me to ANI cring 3RR. Please dont play with fire. You are unable to understand his irony and are implicating a recently deceased art historian your islamophobia. Utterly shameful."

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:

Systematic reverts of my contributions and unrelenting battleground mentality, major WP:OWN. Utterly disrespectful of collaborative editing:
 * 1) "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly"
 * 2) " "Let us keep the article in its current state at the time of this post", a state in which "all have been added by me (...) and all have been paraphrased by me"
 * 3) "Here is an article that I have written from start to finish. You have done nothing user:Patiliputra but be disruptive."

Outrageous and abusive edit summaries. Irrational, mistaken arguments and major abusive language on the Talk Page of the article. Fowler&fowler apparently thinks he is above Wikipedia rules and civility standards. Something has to be done. Fowler&fowler was already Warned 2 times previously for similar behaviour (by Admin User:EdJohnston) and, to no avail. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not much concerned about the warning from 2021, but the warning from last month is I think relevant. It took me a while to figure out, but the warning was given by, not by EdJohnston. F&f in one of their edit summaries refers to User:Patiliputra; do you know to whom they're referring (there is no such user)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Pataliputra" is the reading of my Hindi user name (User:पाटलिपुत्र) पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowler

 * I have just finished rewriting Darjeeling and received this appreciation from some FAR regulars.  The article will appear as TFA on India's independence day on 15th August. I collaborated there with the nominator of the original FA back in 2006.  There was never any issue over the more than 1100 edits I made in the last several months.


 * This is not my first encounter with user:Pat, or पाटलिपुत्र&mdash;which I was told was the Sanskrit spelling of Patliputra.


 * They have engaged in WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA, and persisted despite my revert in order to bait me.


 * The last time user:Pat and I had such an encounter was in August 2020, on the talk India page when user:Pat had engaged in unapologetic Xenophobia. India is another FA that I had revised in plain sight of dozens, including administrators over a three-months period before its TFA on Gandhi's 150 birthday on October 2 2019.  A year later, in a thread begun by a a Hindu-nationalist-POV promoting  editor who is now ARBIPA topic banned (but to whom I still showed empathy in that link), user:Pat objected to a picture of a church and proposed something Hindu should replace it; they objected to a picture of a mosque, and proposed something Hindu should replace it and then they objected to a picture of our son who had turned 30 just then and whose pictures modeling the Kurta had been in Wikipedia since 2007 when he was a teenager, and proposed that someone who is "an actual Indian"  should replace him, and guess who the proposed candidates were?  All three Hindus.  (Hmm. I thought India was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society; I wrote the India FA's lead which proclaims it) I immediately received emails from administrators to withdraw the picture, that it was obvious instance of baiting me to take a misstep, and that in viciously Hindu nationalist India of today, you don't know what it might lead to.  So I took the picture out.


 * This time they have engaged in gratuitous WP:ISLAMOPHOBIA&mdash;low-grade it might have been, but it was unmistakeable in the manner in which it was accomplshede&mdash;by selectively picking a sentence from a recent book that says many things over many pages in many shades of nuance, and then misinterpreting it. Again the MO is the same: bait someone by speaking politely, making edits that technically don't fall under reverts but have the same effect, quote rules and regulations loftily and sanctimoniously, but edge more and more into forms of hatred that all principles of Wikipedia anathematize, and wait for your opponent to blow up.
 * The article is Lion Capital of Ashoka, which was in this state of disrepair before I began to edit it on July 14, 2022. I have turned it into this state of improvement as of early this morning when took out the "in use." Over 90% of the text, the paraphrasing, and the turns of phrase, are mine. Over 90% of the sources are the ones I have added.
 * What is user:Pat's MO? They appear immediately after and introduce the same pseudo-Hindu-nationalist or Hindu-sub nationalist twists (i.e favoring the region Bihar and its ancient glory in which their avatar name Patliputra lies) They do so politely and wait for me to revert their edits.  When I do, they get their edits, or a second-cousin third-removed of their edit back in, and wait for me to take a misstep. I am aware of this of course; I noted it in my edit summary yesterday.
 * First they restored to full-size an image whose increased dimension makes the infobox stick half-way through section 1. I had made a special note of it in the previous edits.
 * To the sentence "The lion capital eventually fell to the ground and was buried." they [added the old Hindu nationalist excuse, "or may have been overthrown by Muslim invaders in the 10-12th century CE." edit in the lead, when there was no mention of it anywhere else in the article; they cited it, moreover, when there are no citations in the lead. Worse yet, they maligned a fine recently decease art historian at the the University of Minnesota, Frederick Asher, by including them by implication in this unholy obsession.
 * When I reverted them, they inserted the edit back in with this poor paraphrase of Rick Asher from page 74.
 * Why am I sure this is Hindu-nationalist POV promotion and baiting besides? Because Asher says many things, with great nuance throughout the book. On page 3 (yes right in the beginning) he says, "'Something happened that brought premodern construction at Sarnath to an end after the twelfth century and, in all probability, caused the resident monks to desert the monastery. That was about the same time that other monasteries in India seem to have been abandoned. Generally, the blame is placed on invaders, almost invariably identified by their religion, Islam, rather than their geographic or cultural identity, Afghans. But Sarnath may have also suffered devastation by Hindus, not just by invading Afghan armies. An intriguing explanation for this, and also for possible interruptions in the long life of the site, is offered by Giovanni Verardi and, at greater length, by Federica Barba in an appendix to Verardi’s book.19 They make a strong case, based on both literature and archaeology, that Brahmanical hostility toward Buddhists resulted in the destruction of Sarnath and other sites." And then he goes on to mention many other explanations, including Muslim.
 * So what is the bottom line here? If the powers-that-be want to block me or permanently ban me, that is their prerogative, but I refuse to brook forms of hatred, blatant or insouciant, on Wikipedia, against any religion, gender, or form of life. I have warned user:Pat numerous times to stop this promotion, and that I will take them to AN asking for a topic ban, at the very least from the mainstream India-related articles, but as it is, I am the one who is being dragged to AN/I in carefully planned baiting trips.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PS Please do not clog this section with long posts. Do so, in whatever way you want in the sections below.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Added later (Proposal): As I said, to an editor on the article's talk page, "I'm not proud of my long replies. And certainly in any future vote I'll be pithy.  All I can say in defense is that this had been going on for a long time before the RfC. I was being asked again and again to point out the problems with the sources.  I responded several times that it property belonged to RS/N.  I was told: RS/N requires exhaustive and inconclusive discussion on the talk page first.  In the end, out of frustration, I opened: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380.  The answer by SamuelRiv (very articulate fellow; made me a little jealous) was good enough for me, but the exchange there kept being prolonged. Eventually they posted on the article's talk page, and told my interlocutor,
 * "'@पाटलिपुत्र: none of your photo-style 'reconstitutions' are appropriate for WP, including the one you did of Sanchi. The Sanchi capital has more than enough surviving structure that the reader can infer the size and composition of the crowning wheel, in my opinion. Also, all such images need to be labeled as 'illustrations' or 'photoillustrations' (there might be a new term, but those are the terms I learned) -- the Commons 'retouched' template is not sufficient, nor is the non-standard term 'reconstitution'. ...SamuelRiv (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)" I jumped for joy, thinking it was the end. But the next thing I knew, this RfC began, and I groaned."
 * Proposal for the closer/admins
 * If you feel I have been overly rude to other editors and would like to teach me an object lesson, please block me for the amount of time you think is appropriate.
 * If you feel I have violated 3RR (which I never keep track of) and need punishing, please add on that punishment as well. I'm a big boy, I can take it.  However, please impose the blocks after the Darjeeling TFA on 15 August.
 * However, if you want to this conflict between user:Pat and me to end, please impose a no fault two way interaction ban on us. ( The conflict has been going for three years from the time I posted on Talk:Neolithic/Archive_1 Despite Johnbod, Drmies, and AD Monroe III generally agreeing with me, there was no budging my interlocutor from copying and pasting text from PLOS journals. ) We belong to vastly different gene-pools of ideologies, outlooks, and worldviews, and I don't see any hope for resolution.
 * I know AN is the proper venue for this proposal, but I am exhausted. I don't have the time nor the patience for further back-and-forth.  Please humor me this once. Please. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a real-time example.
 * I may not know all the WP rules, or have them down to a T, but there is a certain form of honesty I abide by. It includes not continuously changing an initial RfC statement long after many editors have replied to it and already weighed in with a vote.
 * I woke up this morning to view the nominator having done just that. When I attempted to refactor the addition, a 17th reference, I became stuck as there was no new signature of the nominator with a time stamp with which to post the addition at the end.  In this time the nominator had reverted me.  When I attempted to use that time stamp and signature to refactor that addition at the end, they still reverted me.  In the end I have posted this comment at the end, which shows that the nominator has been less than forthcoming in what the source says.  In my way of thinking, this is a form of dishonesty.  Perhaps I get more riled up about these things than others do, but if I don't intervene unencyclopedic information will go into Wikipedia.  What is the best solution here?  I am no longer sure.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment by पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk)
1) For the record, I have no interest at all in promoting "Hindu nationalism" (the fact that I chose a user name after an ancient Indian city, पाटलिपुत्र-Pataliputra is irrelevant), and have no inclination whatsoever towards "Islamophobia" (here invoked repeatedly and grandiloquently simply because I quoted and paraphrased closely a reliable source (Asher 2020, p.74) on what "writers generally assume" to be the cause of the destruction of the Lion Capital of Ashoka, in light of the well-known and not so peaceful Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. See Asher 2020, p.11 for specifics on major Islamic destructions at Sarnath, especially under Qutb-ud-din Aibek in 1193. Of course, Hindus may also have participated to the decline, especially in the form of temple conversions under the Gahadavala dynasty, per Asher). 2) The bottom line is that User:Fowler&fowler is a rather competent content creator, but a highly WP:OWN one (see User:Johnbod's mention of "F&F's imperial claims of ownership" ) with a battleground mentality, wielding constant disruption (see User:Snow Rise's comment to him: "looking at the conduct in this thread, I have to say that yours is looking like the much, much more WP:Disruptive conduct at the moment." ), who will systematically vilify ("You know nothing about Indian history. Nothing", "You have no idea at all how much I despise your POV." ), delete and revert (overt breaches of 3RR) the contents of any perceived opponent until he can contentedly brag that "the text, and the sources are all mine and all scholarly"  or "I have rewritten this article, rewritten its every word, found its every reference.". If interested, just look at the level of verbal abuse other editors have to endure everyday when dealing with him (and it is just one example among many...), to be contrasted with the "rigorously cold civility" he reluctantly acknowledges in me. 3) I know there is not much I can do about it, but I don't mind lengthy Talk Page discussions and receiving imput from other users to debate a point, although this process is rendered rather ineffectual since Fowler&fowler is not actually interested in genuine exchanges on Talk Pages ("I hadn't noticed that because I don't read your data dumps." ). At least I would like basic Wikipedia rules to be rigorously upheld in the process: no verbal abuse or personal attacks, and no edit-warring (with particular respect for the 3RR rule). If, through Administrator intervention, Fowler&fowler can be made to respect these basic tenets of collaborative editing, the editorial environment would be much better for everyone. After several administrative warnings already I believe a symbolic, temporary block is in order at this point, so that Fowler&fowler receives the message that editing should be civil and collaborative, and that refraining from edit-warring and observing the 3RR rule is a red line that has to be respected on Wikipedia. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Replies

 * user:Pat, I've been around on WP for 16 years. I have maintained the FA India for just as long. I have collaborated with hundreds of editors, not just only India (where  I have collaborated with dozens of people including many administrators), but on FAC, FAR, and lord knows what else. You have the nerve to say you are not racist (when you say, "An actual Indian," thereby implying that someone who does not look Indian does not have the right to model Indian clothes, especially for a Wikipedia article.  No one has as yet in the 15 years since produced better examples at Kurta. Ten years ago you would have been banned from WP for such racism.  I am being gentle with you by calling you xenophobic.  It is the same as your other remarks here
 * You object to a picture of a mosque that has been in the FA India since 2004, with the comment,
 * "The "Society" paragraph is illustrated by a Muslim in prayer in an old mosque in Srinagar... This is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."
 * You object to a WP:FP of a church with the remark, "Why has the unique photograph in the religion paragraph have to be a photograph of a Christian church??... Again, this is highly WP:Undue and border provocative for a majority Hindu country..."
 * What else is Hindu nationalism and majoritarianism? Admin Vanamonde93 who replied to you later in that thread said pretty clearly, "The argument that "society" and "religion" ought not to be illustrated with images of Islam or Christianity is the sort of sectarian nonsense that I would almost recommend sanctions for."
 * I let you off lightly that time and a few times since warning you that I would take you to AN for a topic ban, but never actually did. But you don't seem to listen.  You are religion baiting in your edits, some the worst kind I have seen on my 16 years on WP. The worst. You think it is not obvious that you appear on a page that you have edited ten times in the last ten years, and then suddenly begin to hover over it in hundreds of little edits soon after I appear?  How strange is that? I just collaborated with user:Dwaipayanc another WP veteran on Darjeeling and received this barnstar from them. There are a handful of people on Wikipedia, all Hindu nationalist warriors user:Highpeaks35 (now permabanned), user:LearnIndology (now topic banned) with whom I have experienced such unpleasantness as I have with you.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In case you are looking to deny that you only occasionally edited that article, here is your own disclaimer: "I have only contributed to this article in a rather patchy fashion, most of the content has never been my own. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)" So why have you been hovering after I appeared? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally, I have nothing personal against you, but as long as you do prolific original research on images, cutting out snippets from here, pasting them there, endlessly, ever and anon, to overburden pages with boosterism of Hindu nationalism or Hindu sub-nationalism, not to mention baiting of Islam, Christianity, you will find an implacable foe in me. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A new Wikipedia normal seems to be appearing. I'm seeing it on other pages. It proceeds in these steps. 1) Bone up on the basic rules so you can quote them. 2) Introduce POV edits in mainstream pages. 3)   Concurrently, start a talk page discussion. Find a long list of fringe sources that support your edits and rigorously dump the same in each reply without really saying anything. 4) When your edit is reverted do not revert, but make a new edit that has 3/4 of your original POV combined with  1/4 of some other POV 5) When that gets reverted, make a new edit with 1/2 your original  POV and 1/2 of some new POV content.  Start also a 3RR clock now for your opponent.  ... Continue in this fashion until you think you can start ANI discussions.
 * The letter of the law will prevail. The spirit of the law will take a severe beating.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That user:Pat is a serial abuser of fringe sources is not just my observation, it is that of others as well. Here is what Ms Sarah Welch said in Sockpuppet investigations/पाटलिपुत्र/Archive about user:Pat and their sockpuppet: " both have used inscriptions and artwork to create POV-y history in a range of articles, pushing fringe and discredited theories".  That was in 2017.  And I said above on 11 August 2022, "prolific original research on images, cutting out snippets from here, pasting them there, endlessly, ever and anon, to overburden pages with boosterism of Hindu nationalism or Hindu sub-nationalism, not to mention baiting of Islam, Christianity."  On the other hand the last time I was blocked was in 2008 for an hour and the admin said, "Not all Fowler's fault."  So, why is it that user:Pat is the first (a few weeks ago) and second (now) to bring me to ANI?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Short summary reply to Fowler&fowler
 * I am afraid this litany is all far-fetched and totally irrelevant to the matter at hand: I too could list, in a period of 5 years, pages of instances of mistakes, editorial conflicts, and inappropriate behaviour on your part (which I think a few Administrators are well aware of). The matter here is only related to your daily editorial behaviour: edit-warring, breach of the 3RR rule, in addition to the constant incivility and verbal abuse (documented above, in just a single article). We can discuss about sources whenever your want (if at least you actually use Talk pages for discussion rather than just vilifying: cf "I hadn't noticed that because I don't read your data dumps." ) The point of this thread is simply that every interaction on Wikipedia has to be made in a civil manner, without personal attacks , without edit-warring and without repeatedly breaching the 3RR rule . At Wikipedia too the Law is the Law, that's all, nobody is above it, and nothing can justify constant abusive language against other editors and wanton editorial methods... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But values are above the laws instituted to uphold them. By making fringe edits, you are violate WP values of reliability and neutrality. In other words, there are plenty loopholes in the law to be exploited (such as #4 in my new rulebook above).  They can be couched in the most respectful edit summaries.  Whatever I do, reliability and neutrality are never violated. Whatever you do, at least on mainstream South Asia-related topics where are interaction has usually taken place, you almost always violate reliability and neutrality. I am talking about the ladder that you are damaging disastrously.  You are accusing me of not polishing the rungs of the ladder enough when I set it right.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PS: I have given the facts to the best of my ability, and I do not intend to respond further until closure by User:Bbb23. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As for this post, you are only confirming the new POV-pushing pattern I have seen: 1) Bone up on Wikipedia rules and quote them compulsively even to old hands 2) Clog the talk page with long lists of fringe sources in every reply of yours, i.e. data dumps. ... Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User Pat has accused me of OWNERSHIP on account of my "bragging" about having written it, the page statistics of the article says it all.
 * Authorship attribution
 * Rank           Username               Characters         Percentage
 * 1          Fowler&fowler                   27,215                  84.3%
 * 2               पाटलिपुत्र                                   2,916                          9%
 * Their own disclaimer for bearing any responsibility for the pathetic state the article was in when I began to edit it on July 14, was that they had only patchily edited it. But since I began to edit it, they have done nothing but edit the article or the talk page.  Just astounding.  See here.  What encyclopedic content have they created?  Nothing as far as I can tell.  On the other hand, I seem to have done quite a few other things. See here  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To the closer: Please examine: Talk:Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka and user:Pat's "Temporary tally" above it. Although the note is for a different closer, do you see the kinds of subtle shifts of narrative between below and above? Similar shifts, but more POV-ridden, accompany the edits that people such as I have to counter.  If we make a misstep, or become frustrated, the lord above help us. It is relentless.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally? Although F&F's comment above is again irrelevant to the subject at hand (3RR), please note that Fowler&fowler's alternative characterizations of the opinions of others in the linked RfC (Talk:Lion_Capital_of_Ashoka) have already been strongly rebutted by the interested party: see User:Johnbod's "F&F has been blatently misrepresenting my comments", accompanied by a description of F&F's recurrent and problematic conflict-ridden approach in several other articles such as Talk:Priest-King_(sculpture), Talk:Buddha_Preaching_his_First_Sermon_(Sarnath), and Talk:Pashupati seal. At the very least a strong message has to be sent that Fowler&fowler's systematic edit-warring and repetitive breach of 3RR are not acceptable editorial behaviour.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To Closer/Admins: Please see my proposal added to my statement above. Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Effect of Warnings: Please note that User:Johnbod, who has known and interacted with Fowler&fowler for a very long time, deplores the "number of very similar rows initiated and kept going by F&F", and is complaining that Administrative warnings have so far remained without any effect on Fowler&fowler's editorial behaviour: "He was already warned over this article some 2 weeks ago, with no discernable effect."  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * My discussion with Johnbod on Talk:Priest-King_(sculpture), for example, is about content. It might have been extended (in part because there is so much information in my head and I can type fast 80 wpm, it is easy for my fingers to run ahead of my brain, kind of like Marx in the British Museum reading room finding no time to be brief), but I've never in my wildest dreams thought either Johnbod or Ceoil was being less than forthcoming, or were not demonstrating the highest integrity. Never any doubt.
 * I consider you, however, to be violating many important principles of Wikipedia, or at the very least to pushing edits well into the outer boundary of the gray zone between the principled and unprincipled, and every now and then outright into the unprincipled. We are talking apples and oranges.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I've already offered to the closing admins that if I've exceeded my commission I'm happy to submit to the appropriate punishment. There's no reason for you to keep arguing for your pound of flesh. They are plenty wise.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not asking for anything more than administrative steps to make sure that civility and editorial rules are respected. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Johnbod, whom you like to mention without linking (no ping, no risk...) encountered exactly the same issues with you. Please stop this blatant WP:OWN behaviour, and respect the contributions of others. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I was away when this all kicked off, & now I'm back it seems very difficult to work out what the fuss was really about, not for the first time. When this has died down, & F&F's high horse has had a good gallop & returned to the stable for a rub down, we can perhaps pick through the fragments to see what is missing. ... Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 * And this was chopped liver? For me that sort of thing is water off a duck's back. Unremarkable chatter, in one ear out the other. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Or for that matter, this:
 * He was already warned over this article some 2 weeks ago, with no discernable effect. F&F has built up a lot of goodwill with senior editors over the years by beating off persistent Hindutva nonsense on various Indian political and general articles, but his conduct over the last year or so must be draining this away. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Those articles, two from the Indus Valley Civilisation (back in capital C because of my efforts) predating the birth of Hinduism by 2,000 years, had nothing to do with Hindutva, only with poorly sourced writing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC) That's not entirely true for the IVC ones, especially the seal, but my point is you should stick to what you do best, and try to restrain your inventive (especially when your arguments are skating on very thin ice). Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 * News to me that on Stanley Henry Prater, Walter Samuel Millard, Ethelbert Blatter, Herbert Musgrave Phipson, Dorothy Burlingham 15 years ago, Ludlow Castle, Delhi, Samuel Ludlow (surgeon). F.P. Wilson, Copying pencil, The Mimic Men, Herbert Reiner Jr. ten years ago, or History of English grammars, Mandell Creighton and Darjeeling the last two months, I was fighting Hindutva Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All that matters to me is that I turned an article that looked like this a month ago into this today and it was mostly my work. Sure I'm bragging a little, but it comes from having pride doing the work.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Adee KULKARNI reported by User:MaxnaCarta (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added features of singing style of Rahul Ji"
 * 2)  "Added content. Added features of his singing style according to global standards."
 * 3)  "Added the Website of Rahul Ji."
 * 4)  "Added content. Rahul Ji is known for his great singing ability, just added that feature."
 * 5)  "Added content"
 * 1)  "Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Rahul Deshpande (HG) (3.4.10)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view."
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Rahul Deshpande."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User consistently reinserts biased material into the article, has been reverted many times and warned about edit warring - not listening to warnings or engaging in any dialogue, just inserting the same content in over and over. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * From just that article, because it's the only one they've edited. Let's see if they take the hint and find some more productive way to contribute. Daniel Case (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Primexaos reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

For Osteopathy
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

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:


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:ITBF reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Blocked one week)
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: please see Talk:Scott Morrison

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

Comments:

3RR violation, with the editor reverting a fourth time despite discussing on the talk page. Please note that I'm at 3 reverts myself, but won't be reverting further. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. As stated on the talkpage, the content in question is poorly sourced and contains elements of WP:SYNTH, hence was removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. ITBF (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Kada13 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: CU blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revered edits made by Praxidicae"
 * 2)  "Revered edits made by Praxidicae"
 * 3)  "Revered edits from Praxidicae"
 * 4)  "Reverted edits"
 * 5)  "Just someone wanted to deleted for no justified reason"
 * 1)  "Just someone wanted to deleted for no justified reason"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Draft:Islam Borinca."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Contested deletion 2 */ Reply"

Comments:

I have explained in my comments and warnings to this user why they cannot continue to remove this tag and they persist (and incorrectly use edit summaries saying they are reverting my edits when it's actually another user they are reverting.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * And even since filing this, they've again reverted someone else with an incorrect edit summary PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Xselant reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: 1 month; subsequently indefinite)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1104760071 by Praxidicae (talk) STOP removing sourced information. You need to have a reason to remove well-sourced information and specific problems have not been set out at all."
 * 2)  "Stop edit-warring, all info is well-sourced if you cared to look at the sources"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1104745433 by Denniss (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Chipsets */"
 * 5)  "/* Chipsets */"
 * 6)  "/* Chipsets */"
 * 7)  "/* Chipsets */"
 * 8)  "/* Chipsets */"
 * 9)  "/* Chipsets */"
 * 1)  "/* Chipsets */"
 * 1)  "/* Chipsets */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Socket AM5."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

this appears to be a long term problem for this user (edit warring) and they don't appear to be engaging in discussion anywhere, instead are just templating experienced editors and restoring their preferred content. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked 1 month as this is their third block for edit warring in their very short time here (at least with this account).-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Bedivere (Result: One month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:

User has been consistently edit warring against me and another user, disregarding warnings and efforts made to make them stop such disruptive behavior. Revirvlkodlaku warned them earlier today and I just did too (unknowingly of Revirvlkodlaku's previous warn). Bedivere (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not notified of this report. You are required to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that @Bbb23, just done so. Bedivere (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted in the history of the article, Bedivere has been edited this article unilaterally and together with Revirvlkodlaku acted in tandem to avoid 33R but efecttively control the content of the article. These two editors, knowing the conflicting views on the article insists on doing undiscussed changes to it and perpetuating them. Dentren &#124; Talk 20:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked for one month with a warning that the next edit-warring block will be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:Rhosnes (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:


 * I left a bit of constructive criticism, including proposing ways to improve the article, admittedly accompanied by an angry (although in my opinion warranted) rant on the talk page of the History of technology page. However, this user must've disagreed with my criticism and decided the best course of action would be to simply delete my comment. How convenient, right? The state of the article is in shambles, so instead of addressing the underlying problems, let's just pretend they don't exist! Anyhow, I tried to reason with them via edsums, but they simply insisted that I was trolling and not proposing improvements to the article (a verifiably false claim). Personally, I would like to have a chance to share suggestions and give feedback to articles that I believe would benefit from such ─ I assume this is the entire premise behind the existence of talk pages, so hopefully this isn't too unreasonable of a request ─ but, unfortunately, I'm being denied it by this pesky user. I didn't leave a message on their talk page, but it is pretty clear from their edsums that they have no intention of discussing the issue or stopping edit-warring ─ they continue to claim that my edits are unhelpful without providing any explanation for why that is the case. I would highly appreciate if someone could help me out here. Rhosnes (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it is Edit Warring?, I see only two edits in May 2022, one edit in June 2022, and just one Edit today in August. I'm not sure it is an violation of 3RR. Chip3004 (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely positive. It doesn't violate 3RR, but I've seen people getting blocked for days for far more minor offences. A bit confused why not action is being taken here. The user is clearly being disruptive, and I was given no suggestion as to how to resolve the situation without further edit-warring. Rhosnes (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)




 * That doesn't violate 3RR. It was exactly 3 4 reverts since 8 May. Not three reverts in 24 hours., while the talk page isn't for venting what ssaid was not worth the removal. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. I know it doesn't violate 3RR, but it's a clear case of disruptive edit-warring. As I mentioned earlier, I've seen people getting blocked for far more minor offences. Do you suggest we just keep going back and forth forever? Is that really what I have to do just to share suggestions on a talk page? Rhosnes (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No you don't. You could re-write your suggestions to remove the rant. And Wtshymanski needs to stop removing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Chuckdisi reported by User:NZFC (Result: Blocked 72 hours, then indefinite)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1104796351 by NZFC (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Kit manufacturer */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1104791813 by Nehme1499 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1104675014 by GiantSnowman (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1104708417 by Nehme1499 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1104709440 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1104481744 by Felixsv7 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1104709440 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1104481744 by Felixsv7 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Antigua and Barbuda national football team."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Kits */ new section"

Comments:

So this appears to be a big case of WP:OWN seeing as of their total 1455 edits 1,441 edits have been to the Antigua and Barbuda national football team article. They appear to have never been to a talk page to discuss and ignored request to join a discussion at the Football project talk page or the pinged message on the articles talk page. Ignored the talk on their own page and keeps reverting. — NZFC  <sup style="color:black">(talk) <sup style="color:black">(cont)  23:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Editor continuing to edit war / ignore warnings> Spike &#39;em (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree this user needs a block, it's been 2 days of unilateral reverting and ignoring the discussion that I invited them to join, which has clear consensus against their edits. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with the editors above: clearly WP:OWN. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 11:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I now they are getting banned.—  NZFC  <sup style="color:black">(talk) <sup style="color:black">(cont)  11:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the user for 72 hours. Of greater concern is their never talking. If the disruption and the failure to respond to other editors continues after expiration of the block, the user should be indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we didn't have to wait until expiration of the block. Based on post-block "comments" by the user on his Talk page, I've increased the block to indefinite and revoked TPA. Apparently, he does know how to talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

User:AmitZion12345678 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:AmitZion12345678#August_2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Roni Stauber#Tags

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:AmitZion12345678#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:

User continues to edit war to change the standard WP:CLEANUPTAGs without resolving or even contributing to the article in any other way. Warned twice on talk page, no response. –– FormalDude   talk   00:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point they aren't making much in the way of friends, I agree, but after the third revert yesterday they stopped and have not edited in almost 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

User:RicardoSadik reported by User:MdsShakil (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* spelling */ Reply"

Comments:

On this page they ignores consensus and discussion and adding their own thoughts consistently. They have been warned about this several times —MdsShakil (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They have edited once this entire month. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Yuotort reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Racist terrorists in the 1960s were not alt-right, because alt-right was not a thing until the 2010s."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1105025696 by Praxidicae (talk) Alt-right is a subset of white nationalism, not the other way around."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1105025696 by Praxidicae (talk) Alt-right is a subset of white nationalism, not the other way around."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Category:Alt-right terrorism."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Category:White nationalist terrorism."
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Category:White nationalist terrorism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

see also related edit warring at Category:Alt-right terrorism and Incel <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

WTF is this, Mr. Praxidicae? Yuotort (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I will tell you only one time more: I am not male, my pronouns are she/her. Stop calling me Dude and "Mr." If you have trouble grasping this concept, you're welcome to just refer to my username. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * And while this isn't related to this dispute, they're also edit warring here and restoring fancruft. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 04:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

User:ShanaChan95 reported by User:Starhunterfan (Result: Blocks and protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:

This editor has made the same reversion 20 times in a row within the space of 24 hours (against multiple other editors) and seems to have registered for this sole purpose, as their account is brand new and has made no other edits. They continually change "views on transgender issues" to "transphobic views" or "virulently transphobic views" and have even added two notes saying "neutrality is not required." Trans rights are a subject that people are obviously passionate about, but "views on transgender issues" is informative and neutral. Continually changing "views on transgender issues" to "transphobic views" is editorialising and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Making 20 reverts in a row is a clear breach of edit warring rules. (My apologies for not discussing on the editor's talk page first; I am a very inexperienced Wikipedia user.) Starhunterfan (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . So blocked for 24 hours.,  and  blocked indefinitely. The article is EC protected for two weeks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that you blocked ShanaChan95 for only 24 hours and the other three accounts indefinitely, since ShanaChan95 made many more reverts. Did you mean to do it the other way around? gnu 57 15:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . No that was the way I wanted it. Look at the edits they made. While it doesn't excuse the edit warring by they were warring against several sockpuppets created just to participate in an edit war. There was one other that I didn't block but they were an older account that had made an edit elsewhere. I didn't put in for a sockpuppet investigation because they were obvious and I have no idea who the master is. Easy enough to reblock if ShanaChan95 resumes the edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Razborka reported by User:Lil-unique1 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: first revert

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my first edit summary
 * Note on user's page diff

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

Comments:

I'd like to point out that Razborka was blocked for two weeks in May for similar patterns of editing at a different article. From their response to me, it appears that English may not be their first language - without prejudice that's fine. We are an international community. However I think its obvious Razborka doesn't understand WP:BRD or WP:CONSENSUS, when their edits are a position contrary to WP:RECORDCHARTS and a discussion about the very thing they are trying to add Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts. Admittedly not a robust discussion in terms of user involvement but some common sense agreement about RecordCharts policy requiring charts to be independent, verified, archived, and time relative i.e. what period is being referred to. Totally appreciate its not WP:3RR yet but its clearly WP:EDITWAR and no sign that they are willing to engage at all in a constructive conversation without simply adding the info we would deem as inappropriate for the article. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 22:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I reverted their most recent revert. They have about eight hours to not violate 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User's last edit, on their talk page, indicates that they accept what they've done and will move on. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Stephanie921 reported by User:Editorkamran (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1105272048 by Extorc (talk) Not disruptive. If u have a problem with my edit then say why, I've given legitimate reasons that agree with other editors"
 * 2)  "/* Topic ban proposals */Agreed caution is needed. Anyway, if a user doesn't want their old username public it shouldn't be public regardless of whether it's a strict outing vio according to code. Its just basic courtesy, and either way its a vio in spirit. Wikiholic said name invades privacy, so it's an outing vio"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1105267449 by Editorkamran (talk) Info is clear OUTING violation as agreed by me, Mako and Wikiholic"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1105265677 by Editorkamran (talk) It wasn't wanted up, it shouldn't be up"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents."
 * 2)   "/* August 2022 */"
 * 3)   "/* ANI notification */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* August 2022 */"

Comments:

They registered on 12 July 2022 and already causing mass disruption. Also see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents - an ongoing report on ANI.

This user does not understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, as such it is necessary to communicate than sticking to edit warring. Editorkamran (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved: User_Talk:331dot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie921 (talk • contribs)


 * - As this is directly relevant to the AN/I discussion and it seems you've started discussing it, please keep it to one place. DatGuyTalkContribs 12:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ANI is about never ending pattern of uncollaborative behavior and edit warring while this report is about the recent edit war. It seems justified to report here given brightline breach of 3RR to stop the very current disruption. It cannot be ignored just because the user was already reported somewhere else by another editor. Editorkamran (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue in the ANI thread is about Stephanie921's failure to respond, where they instead turn to edit-warring. I find the behaviour mentioned here and the behaviour mentioned in ANI to be the same. Stephanie921 seems to have stopped the active disruption and indicated an understanding. Whether they do truly understand or not is yet to be seen, but the consensus for how to react to their pattern of behaviour should be reached at ANI. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw my pronouns are she/her
 * I already said I'll stop now and wait for an uninvolved administrator to resolve the matter in that talk page I linked - now that I understand it might not be as clear-cut as I thought. The edit war is over.

User:142.183.21.97 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Pageblocked)
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:

IP:142.183.21.97 has continued to introduce, redundant(information already in the article written in the proper perspective), out of context(information that does not even mention the subject of the article), oddly worded to the point of illegible information, and, per my post on the article talk page explanation, outdated and unreliable source(s).

IP142.183.21.97, has not chosen to engage on the article talk page, ignored the 3rr warning, and instead has chosen to issue threats,"Please do not remove true and proven sourced information, your holding back Wikipedia, and it will result in a report!", and some other vague aspersions,"Do not remove sourced and true information." Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

IP142.183.21.97 has continued to edit war, reverting user:Czello. Kansas Bear (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * from Joan II of Navarre.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Nightscream reported by User:Kvng (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Radio

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

Comments:

See additional discussion of the disputed editing pattern at User_talk:Nightscream, User_talk:Nightscream, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Regardless of whether these edits are justified by policy, edit warring is a disruptive way to push this. This issue is being pushed by Nightscream at other articles (e.g. Phonograph record) where they have done similar reverts. ~Kvng (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I will recuse myself from making a decision on this due to my (requested) participation in the linked discussion at Nightscream's talk page (which I incorporate into my remarks below by reference). But per that I will also say that I do not see this as actionable here. Understandably the reporting editor is put out that Nightscream abruptly removed a great chunk of uncited material from a top-level article that was very basic and fundamental to it to the point of being uncontroversial enough that no one really minded sitting there uncited for so long. But for that very reason there was never any excuse for leaving it uncited for so long. Facts so basic to a subject, especially one so broad, should not want for reliable sources—I mean, if we left, say, the suface area of New York City uncited, because we were all comfortable with it and it wasn't controversial, how would we look? How credible would we seem as a source of information? There is no such thing as benign neglect here. I note that the editor primarily responsible for writing all this uncited material has owned his past negligence (and I find that edit of his more signficant than this one later (If you accuse someone of basically weaponizing policy, which I agree is possible, I think your case needs to be stronger than it is here). I also find one of the edit summaries on the restorations particularly troubling: "Revert vandalism. Regardless of the citation situation, this has pretty well all existed in the article for many years. It therefore has a de facto consensus for its inclusion even from many respected editors in the field. Carpet blanking in this manner is a route to a block for disruptive editing. Why not be more productive and add references if it bothers you that much." First, calling it "vandalism" is just bad faith. We see too much of that at these noticeboards. "Vandalism", IMO, consists of edits that adds material that could never be of any use to the article (as opposed to edits that might, under different circumstances, be helpful but are not in this instance, which when I block editors for I use "disruptive editing" ... the editor gets this right later on, which I take as a tacit admission of the early bad-faith accusation) As much as it might have upset this editor, Nightscream's removals are objectively not vandalism. But I really find the next part jaw-dropping. "Regardless of the citation situation" ... well, that's a pretty big "regardless", to me on the order of "Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" And it is worth noting that CITE provides for only a very few exceptions (like plot summaries); this isn't one of them. Then: "this has pretty well all existed in the article for many years. It therefore has a de facto consensus for its inclusion even from many respected editors in the field" Oh ... my ... God! No wonder this came from an IP ... I can't imagine any longterm registered editor saying this and expecting to ever live it down. I haven't yet looked at their edit history in depth, but from what I've read it seems that they have edited intermittently over the last decade or so, which makes it less likely that the only reasonable excuse for thinking this—that they just got off a time machine from the 2007 Wikipedia—is true. And even so ... where the hell does this "consensus through chronic inaction" thing come from? All of our pages about consensus treat it as arising from positive action, primarily discussion, not inaction. This sort of rationale deepens my suspicion that the editors arrayed against Nightscream are really more interested in maintaining their continued laziness than doing what they need to do to improve the article. Lastly, "even from many respected editors in the field" sounds like sales talk. Who are these "many respected editors"? Would the IP care to name just one? If anything, a stronger—or equally strong at least—case could be made for edit warring by the reporters here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Those are fine points but not focused on the issue at hand here, edit warring. Is this edit warring? If so, AFAIK, it can't be justified based on the merits of Nightscream's or your policy arguments. Per WP:BRD Nightscream makes the bold change. Then someone reverts it (in this case three have tried) and it gets discussed. You don't edit war to retain your cahnges while it is being discussed. That's disruptive. If after discussion, there's consensus that the material needs to go, it needs to go. I'm aware of no such consensus at this time. ~Kvng (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said at the beginning of my post, I do not consider it edit warring and after reading what you just wrote, I am even less inclined to. BRD is not a rule; it's an essay that offers an ideal of how things should happen but don't necessarily have to. I would commend your attention to the line at BRD that says "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it". In this case those reverting Nightscream did not. They restored text that had lain uncited for years, that had been tagged and flagged as such, text that was technical enough in nature that not every passing editor could be expected to have the knowledge to find reliable sources for, without adding any of the requested cites. Reverting without doing so put the onus on those editors reverting to find those sources. Making later reverts of those deletions without adding sources is, arguably, as disruptive as repeatedly adding the same new unsourced content and restoring it after it gets removed for that reason. Imagine that some people have a house, or an outbuilding they rent out, that they've never bothered to build a roof on. People live in the uncovered space and sometimes get wet or cold. This goes on for years and then someone decides to build a roof and put it on the outbuilding ... only for the owners to remove it almost immediately. This repeats a few times until someone calls the local building inspector and the police, who point out that dwellings are required to have roofs. The owners object that since no one ever had a complaint about this until recently, it wasn't a problem and thus it shouldn't be, and this jerk should be arrested for acting like it is. Do you see now how absurd this looks from the outside? Rather, I think that it is you who are in the wrong, you who have lost all right to complain of edit warring when you let this dog lie for so long (and it never could have been said to be asleep). Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Also, you mischaracterize Nightscream's intent (as I see it) as removing the material entirely and permanently from the article. He has done this merely to light a fire under the proverbial of those who could and should (as they have admitted, as I noted further up) that they should have put cites in a long time ago but have not). He only wants the material removed for so long as it takes to put proper citations in, either in separate draftspace or on the talk page ... then it can be restored. That is a further reason I find BRD ill-suited to resolving this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do consider it edit warring otherwise I would not have reported it. You have recused yourself so I don't think it is appropriate for you to continue posting here. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Kvng, please stop telling people to butt out, and go find some references. I agree with Daniel Case's analysis. It's important that the material be restored, but with references, and you're impying bad faith where it doesn't appear to exist.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Genome42 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I restored my earlier edits after extensive discussion in Talk where nobody was able to come up with good scientific reasons for keeping the old, incorrect and/or misleading, version."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1105299152 by Praxidicae (talk) I'm restoring my edits for the reasons discussed in Talk several days ago."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1104720470 by Praxidicae (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"
 * 4)   "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"
 * 5)   "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */"
 * 6)   "/* Describing intergenic regions in the introduction */ Reply"

Comments:

Persistent edit warring and refusal to provide sources, this user refuses to acknowledge that we require sources, not just an assessment by a self proclaimed SME. Discussions across multiple pages with said user have failed, including here where there has been a slow burning edit war, as well as personal attacks against other editors (which you can see in the discussions and his own talk page.) Instead of providing sources, he is just removing them because they are "outdated", though TNT has provided more up to date sources, which they've now removed as well. They've also expressed a desire to get other editors including myself to purposely engage in edit warring to get other editors blocked. <span style="color: snow; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(crimson, salmon, olivedrab, teal, DarkOrchid, orchid)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing with details set forth in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Rjohnson1980 reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1105372296 by Ptrnext (talk) Again, entirely subjective on your part, and quarterly information is relevant. Mentioning Soros is also relevant. It could be inflammatory, but it's not at all, not even a little bit,, because as the link clearly states, he is/was a major shareholder. Him dumping shares isn't good. This isn't at all controversial."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1105332452 by Ptrnext (talk) Plenty of other pages have information like this, sometimes listing revenue/earnings/etc by quarter; your objection is entirely subjective. It's also a good follow up to the information right above it, and the above/below-like language helps establish context."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1105051197 by Ptrnext (talk) It's relevant information on the company, and it's no different than other info that isn't earth-shattering but still highlights its history (eg the part right above it about reducing its workforce)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has a recent pattern of edit warring with warning from his actions on other pages - does not appear to have taken the policies seriously. MartinezMD (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There was no need to take this step. I understand the policies and was, I believe, following them. I offered reasons for my edits and went back and forth, then just acceded because you can't win every time. As you can see with other edits made to my edits, I don't always try to undo or revise more. It all depends on the circumstances. The other editor in question didn't explain why certain edits were being made right away, and the edits were, again, questionable. But to repeat: I have acceded and will focus on other entries.
 * It's time for all to move on. Rjohnson1980 (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Motherlily reported by User:Pseud 14 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: first revert,

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: the User's attempt to deliberately overhaul a Featured List article to what he/she claims as his/her own page and the succeeding interaction that transpired warrants this direct warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk page discussion

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

Comments:

The User has reverted the current version on a featured list article of an actor's awards and nominations page by totally removing all content and replacing it with a previous version that completely undid the work that was put into it. Removed the lead, changed the structure of the table, and took out the sourcesincluding the tag. User claims that removal of non-notable awards is unwarranted, exclaiming Who are you to say not worthy of mention?, User has explicitly said I am maintaining this page for years and suddenly you changed everything, which to my knowledge is contrary to WP:OWN. Of note, since the User's last edit in September 2021, the article has gone through a rework, nominated to FLC and promoted to FL. Given the User's unwillingness and counterintuitive behavior, I suspect this will just escalate into WP:EDITWAR. It appears User is clearly WP:NOTHERE.--Pseud 14 (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There has only been one revert per 24-hour period in the last two 24-hour periods. I agree that this user is getting under your skin, but their present behavior seems more suited to an AN/I thread than here. As you said "I suspect this will just escalate into WP:EDITWAR", meaning you know it isn't there yet. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Adtigpta01 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It's clearly unnecessary (go and check other celebs bio, everyone have short and that's why there is a title called CAREER lmao) btw you changed my edit without discussing with me.. so plsssssssssssssssssssss"
 * 2)  "Old intro was too long and it is already explained in CAREER"
 * 1)  "Old intro was too long and it is already explained in CAREER"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Already explained at User talk:Adtigpta01 (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An addendum to this: their third revert came even after I pointed them to WP:BRD, left a warning on their talk and even started a discussion on the article's talk (which is honestly their responsibility since they should be the one gaining consensus), which they completely ignored. FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Aisheee reported by User:Tayi Arajakate (Result: Fully protected)
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: see User talk:Aisheee

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

Comments:

There's more but they are divided into multiple chunks. Also add to it the edits of and  which they seem to be claiming is a shared wi-fi. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ya hello guys, if I may. 1. This user User:Tayi Arajakate seems to support https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khiladi_King,

2. This user User:Tayi Arajakate falsely claim to me that "Indian Express" is an obscure tabloid for wiki.

3. This user User:Tayi Arajakate claims above to "attempting to resolve" dispute on my talk page, but actually did not follow up on my answer to his "attempt to discuss"

In short, User:Tayi Arajakate is using methods through his limited "power on wiki" to get his way. I, myself, only follow logic and all my edits are based on well known sources such as Indian Express. Merci! happy week Aisheee (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has been fully protected for one week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I am actually pleasantly surprised by the right decision being made. Now, the article has correct info regarding "mixed" reviews of the movie :) Have a nice day! Aisheee (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Bkbrock59 reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1105510524 by TenPoundHammer (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1105409200 by TenPoundHammer (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1089680508 by TenPoundHammer (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Persistent edit warring. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Three reverts and no more, and then no activity on the article in the last 24 hours or so. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Thank you for the clarification! Bgsu98 (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Teochewov reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Indefinite partial block from two articles )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - reverted unsourced vandalism
 * 2)  - Removed unsourced addition
 * 3)  - reverted vandalism, source does not say
 * 4)  - reverted vandalism source does not say
 * 5)  - reverted vandalism and false identity accusation

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:

Two month old account, probably WP:NOTHERE with one purpose editing behavior. Repeatedly re-adding a group blog as source, removing general maintenance templates such as "more citations needed" and "dead link", removing citations, using false edit summaries accusing me of "unsourced vandalism." Did not respond to warnings:, , , , , ,. In response they called me a "stupid bastard" (WP:NPA) and threatened to report me:. Then they tried to hide it:. This happened again:,. They accused me of removing their reliable sources but the only source I removed was a group blog that was already in the article prior to their editing: blog removal, version prior to Teochewov. Qiushufang (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * from Hoklo people and Teochew people. They seemed to edit constructively outside those two articles ... let's give them a chance to redeem themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Simran Jyothika Bagga Suriya reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result:Sock blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1105895567 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Casting */Re_edits"
 * 3)  "/* Casting */Female leads"
 * 4)  "/* Casting */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1105879427 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1105879495 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Simple narration than huge star cast in the intro"
 * 1)  "/* Casting */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1105879427 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1105879495 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Simple narration than huge star cast in the intro"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1105879495 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Simple narration than huge star cast in the intro"
 * 1)  "Simple narration than huge star cast in the intro"
 * 1)  "Simple narration than huge star cast in the intro"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is heavily biased towards Jyothika and Simran, and will distort the article to favour them. Like this edit on Chandramukhi, and this on Andhagan. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  09:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What is your problem. As you mentioned am after Simran Bagga and Jyothika articles. Making an article more complex or simple?? Which is fine?? I did the same thing for Chandramukhi article. Character importance is more important than screen credits or supporting actor. After lead hero it is lead heroine.Simran Jyothika Bagga Suriya (talk) Simran Jyothika Bagga Suriya (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Always fan editing. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFANWEBSITE. 2409:4073:4E82:142E:0:0:EF08:314 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * per Sockpuppet investigations/Eswaran Naveen. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Carsondyle59 reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1105974782 by Hey man im josh (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1105968307 by Hey man im josh (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1105968307 by Hey man im josh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Not using edit summary on Template:Minnesota Vikings roster."
 * 2)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Carsondyle59."
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Template:Minnesota Vikings roster."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I regular edit the templates in Category:National Football League roster templates, but I run into difficulties on the Vikings template with this user. Note that this particular dispute revolves around the fact that two players on the same side of the ball (offense in this example) cannot have the same jersey number. This is a standard that's widely upheld across those templates.

Today they reverted an edit of mine without explanation. After the second time they did so I issued them a warning about not using edit summaries. , calling me a "fucking asshole who can't take a hint". They continued "Fuck off and leave the NFL rosters alone".

This user to say “I've lost my patience and will revert any change you make to the Vikings roster. ANY change, so get used to it, asshole.”

This is not the first time this user shown aggression towards me. , and in the edit summary they stated, "Leave it and quit being an asshole".

I did get to briefly speak with them at one point back in June, but they ceased communication after. This user has refused to collaborate with me in the past when I've tried to work with them at Template talk:Minnesota Vikings roster.

On with an edit summary of “Undid revision by Hey man im josh is a f'n idiot. Just stop, already! It's been designated for years” – note that after investigation, this was the only roster of all 32 teams that listed the KR (kick returner) designation. I reverted with an explanation of this and they never reverted that particular point again.

This user has a total of 736 edits to Wikipedia since 2009, 686 (93.2%) of which have been to this template. When I make an edit that they don’t like they get very aggressive. User appears to be WP:NOTHERE and does not want to work together. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * for the attacks more than the edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:75.151.174.17 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Block and protect)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1105975844 by Praxidicae (talk)"
 * 2)  "correction to citation, additional information"
 * 3)  "additional updated information under section "History""

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

persistent long term, slow burning edit warring at Phonk in the last month, trying to add a non-notable artist. This extends beyond the 3 edits today too. <span style="color: snow; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(crimson, salmon, olivedrab, teal, DarkOrchid, orchid)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * and Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected&#32;for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:109.255.62.77 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Life in Ireland */ the reference in this case was a link to Umar's own website - not an adequate reference"
 * 2)  "Removed unreferenced material"
 * 3)  "Removed self authored material"
 * 1)  "Removed self authored material"
 * 1)  "Removed self authored material"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Anti-LGBTQI views */ r"
 * 2)   "/* Anti-LGBTQI views */ r"

Comments:

The comment at the Talk Page made at 13:41 contains the 3RR warning. TPP had already been requested. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

User seems to have an axe to grind, removing much relevant material and inserting unreferenced content, changing "Islamic" to "Islamist", etc., describing references published by the Islamic Cultural centre as "self-published", and fake edit summaries: e.g., "removed self-authored material" for an edit removing external links to three different Irish newspapers, and Islamic centre, and a third-level college. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You performed a blanket revert, so did I. I have now reedited more clinically, removing content which only referenced self-published material and adding in other reference material. I do not know why you would say I have an axe to grind - it is you who wants to keep poorly sourced material in the article and removed adequately referenced, topical and relevant information. 109.255.62.77 (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd also add User:RogerCasementStan who is possibly the same editor as the IP, who is now disruptively and WP:POINTEDLY adding citation needed tags after every sentence, going so far as to remove a reference which needs an archive link. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed, WP:DUCK - is almost certainly the IP with a newly registered account. Care to comment, RogerCasementStan? <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful of wandering into defamation territory there. RogerCasementStan (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat? Dude, the anon IP has stopped editing after being warned, and you've shown up with a brand new account and only made edits to that page and to 's talk page, so... WP:DUCK. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected so editors will use the talkpage as intended. Preferably focusing on content, rather than strange speculation that Bastun is the article subject, or tag-bombing.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Seankang426 reported by User:Meters (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: PAge 2

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1106265645 by Uhai (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1106265043 by Uhai (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1106264120 by Meters (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1106261958 by Meters (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Lead images */ new section" (on Tabby cat)
 * 2)   "/* Lead images */ typo in link" (on Bicolour cat)

Comments:

Edit warring to add poor quality pictures of his cats to the leads of Tabby cat ‎ and Bicolour cat. No response to user talk page warnings or article talk page threads. Meters (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * See personal attacks also: 1, 2 Uhai (talk &middot; contribs) 22:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

User:DinosaursKing reported by User:Ta-tea-two-te-to (Result: Blocked)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: - Largest prehistoric animals
 * 1)  "Average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters, not 10.5 meters. Read this source: " (In Largest prehistoric animals)
 * 2)  "This source already proved average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters, not 10.5 meters. Read this source again, and do not keep going edit war: " (In Largest prehistoric animals)
 * 3)  "This source already proved average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters, not 10.5 meters. Read this source again, and do not keep going edit war: " (In Largest prehistoric animals)

Previous version reverted to: - Shark' 14:38, 21 August 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts: - Shark
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1106089194 by Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) Back to the accurate version, and do not keep going edit war." (In Shark)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1106312678 by Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk)This source already proved average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters, not 10.5 meters. Read this source again, and do not keep going edit war: "(In Shark)
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1106329099 by Chip3004 (talk)This source is reliable. Average size adult Megalodon is larger than 16 meters, not 10.5 meters. Read this source again, and do not keep going edit war: "(In Shark)
 * 4) 05:11, 24 August 2022 Undid revision 1106347137 by Hemiauchenia

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There was discussion about contents they edited on here last year.

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

Comments:

As mentioned in ANI discussion, this user is continuing to add information that Megalodon had 16 m average length based on this reference, which is researchgate poster and not a published paper, and published paper by authors does not have data to show that. As you can see contribution of this user, this user is doing edit only for that since the end of last year, means that account is single-purpose account and clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, in talk page of Largest Prehistoric Animals, they can be seen provoking the other users on talk by saying things like "Got it? Kid? LOL" or "OK? Kid?". (Also, I am sorry but it is first time to report user here, so probably wrong points can be seen.) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There has been no breach of the three-revert rule. Three reverts were to one article and three to another. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There was a breach of the three-revert rule on Shark. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

User:DyslexicNerd 01 reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Partial block)
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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: Editor went past 3RR without being informed, but once informed continued and is now at 5RR within 24 hours. - Aoidh (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I had already partial blocked prior to you posting this report.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I didn't notice (probably because I had like 10 tabs open getting diffs together), but thanks for the quick resolution. - Aoidh (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect DyslexicNerd 01 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I posted something about this at Talk:Tyrol Basin and at User talk:DyslexicNerd 01 after DyslexicNerd 01's first round of reverts and had hoped that would at least lead to them discussing things on the article talk page. Apparently, they decided to take things in another direction and continue reverting not only me but also others that followed (including an administrator). Not a very wise thing to do in my opinion, but it is what it is and the block was needed to stop any further disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

User:68.93.182.117 reported by User:Uhai (Result: Blocked and article protected for a month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1106494921 by Uhai (talk) Amazon's official trailer link added."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1106492757 by Maxbmogs (talk) That isn't your business. It is an indisputable fact that people disapprove of this product. You and others are curating a specific narrative and censoring those voicing otherwise. Please stop."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1106492073 by Maxbmogs (talk) Comments from Amazon's Official Trailers on YouTube, which are first in the search query, are a direct reflection of fans world-wide. Soon they will know you are censoring their voices."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1106490046 by Maxbmogs (talk) Fan reaction is clear and deleting this comment is going to result in more fanfare as fans see that this site is being curated to convey the reception in a light most favorable to Amazon and least favorable to the fans."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1106489562 by Maxbmogs (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1106488943 by Maxbmogs (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1106486605 by Maxbmogs (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Existing discussions regarding the reception section: 1, 2
 * 2) User was linked to WP:RS and WP:RSPYT in these edit summaries: 1, 2, 3, which they clearly read because of their responses in their own edit summaries

Comments:

User repeatedly attempting to add statement regarding trailer reception using a YouTube search result/YouTube video as the source.

See threat/personal attack also: 1 (in the edit summary) Uhai (talk &middot; contribs) 22:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * If I might add:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 18:55, 24 August 2022 "Undid revision 1106498318 by TNstingray (talk)"
 *  Comments: 
 * At Administrator intervention against vandalism, I reported the IP address (in this 18:50, 24 August 2022  edit), not realizing that @Uhai had already started this notice. In this 18:52, 24 August 2022 edit, my edit summary stated that the IP address had been reported to the Administrator's noticeboard, and this was reverted as seen above. @Discospinster restored the page in this  18:56, 24 August 2022 edit and blocked the IP address in this  18:56, 24 August 2022 edit, resolving my notice. Hopefully I documented that correctly. TNstingray (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I had originally reported them to WP:AIV but after seeing they had not been sufficiently warned I retracted my report and instead warned them for edit warring. When they had continued reverting, I then made the report here.  To me, it was nebulous which noticeboard to report to, though, in retrospect, their threat combined with the continued addition of unreliably sourced content (disruptive editing) would have made this more appropriate for AIV alone. Uhai (talk &middot; contribs) 23:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Article also protected. I lengthened 's block because this was 10 reverts in one day ... that's more than 31 hours in my book.
 * I have decided also to make the block concurrent with the page protection, so it's a month now. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Maduadih reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * (left wing/anti-Hinduism) 06:26, 6 August 2022 by Shivam Kumar 766
 * (POV dump) 18:10-18:13, 16 July 2022 by TheGlobalEditor

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (left wing/anti-Hinduism) 12:00, 24 August 2022 Undid revision 1102662385 by Venkat TL
 * 2) (left wing/anti-Hinduism) 16:01, 24 August 2022‎ Undid revision 1106411411 by Tayi Arajakate (POV dump) 16:08, 24 August 2022 revert 00:37, 28 July 2022 edit by Tayi Arajakate
 * 3) (POV dump) 17:42, 24 August 2022 partial revert Toddy1
 * 4) (POV dump) 04:58, 25 August 2022 revert Tayi Arajakate
 * 5) (POV dump) 06:29, 25 August 2022 Undid revision 1106558186 by Toddy1
 * 6) (POV dump) 07:58, 25 August 2022 Undid revision 1106569188 by Hako9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:14, 24 August 2022

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:NDTV

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 06:13, 25 August 2022

Comments:

The user has done six seven reverts in 24 hours, but two of those were consecutively saved reverting edits and therefore count as one edit. He/she started off reverting deletion of left-wing/anti-hindu claims. He/she then reverted deletion of a POV dump. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * User already reported to AIV. Doesn't need a discussion. — hako9 (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . Lets see if they can edit OK elsewhere. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Iranofficialiran reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Indef block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1106650952 by Blaze Wolf (talk)"
 * 2)  "undid revision by Praxidicae"
 * 3)  "/* Geography */"
 * 4)  "/* Geography */"
 * 1)  "/* Geography */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

long term persistent edit warring <span style="color: snow; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(DarkGreen, Green, DarkOliveGreen, ForestGreen, SeaGreen)">PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And another since filing. <span style="color: snow; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(DarkGreen, Green, DarkOliveGreen, ForestGreen, SeaGreen)">PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * for edit warring and socking. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

User:The Supermind reported by User:YonasJH (Result: No violation)
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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Ricardo Shaft reported by User:Kstern (Result: Blocked 24h)
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 violated 3RR and fails to provide edit summaries for unsourced content. Kstern (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While his edits did not violate 3RR, his continuation of them over three days and refusal to discuss are more than enough to justify the block. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

User:204.16.94.194 reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Rangeblocked for a month)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1106846956 by Newimpartial (talk) It's been up since the 18th untouched until you decided to take it down "18 August 2022‎ X-Editor talk contribs‎ 15,129 bytes +1,008‎ →‎Career: recent study undo Tag: Visual edit" As you can see from Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria Talk, even Trans activists were willing to leave it up. Stop edit warring."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1106841965 by Newimpartial (talk)  Already discussed.  Don't Edit War.  "Additionally the allegation from Levine that Turban has a conflict of interest is already included at Jack Turban, where it is given as much prominence as is required (ie, not much). Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)"  This has been up for a couple of weeks.  You can't take it down because you don't like what it says."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1106722973 by Newimpartial (talk)  40+ years and recognized expert by Ohio State Medical Board.  Go to Talk but he isn't fringe just because you say he is.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_B._Levine"
 * 4) 03:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1105985472 by Newimpartial (talk) Not a fringe position. Stephen Levine is highly respected."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Warned on 15 August
 * Blocked 48h for edit warring on 15 August

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This editor was blocked a week ago for edit-warring very similar content at Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy. They're back at it this week, but at the BLP of Jack Turban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The post was up. NewsImpartial needs to build consensus before taking it down.  There was a discussion in talk and it was agreed to be left up.
 * agree with what Firefangledfeathers has said. The allegation from Levine was already included with the requisite weight based on its merits, and consensus about the National Review is that statements from it should be attributed. The other two citations; the AACAP Pilot Research Award press release, and (presumably) the funding excerpt from a January 2022 paper, when used in this manner constitute WP:SYNTH and original research, and would be not allowed in the article space. Sideswipe9th (talk) 204.16.94.221 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The original post on August 18th

curprev 01:19, 18 August 2022‎ X-Editor talk contribs‎ 15,129 bytes +1,008‎  →‎Career: recent study undo Tag: Visual edit

News Impartial was asked to take it to Talk but didn't.

curprev 19:41, 26 August 2022‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 14,609 bytes −709‎  Undid revision 1106844733 by 204.16.94.194 (talk)Misleading edit summary. Th

curprev 19:09, 26 August 2022‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 14,609 bytes −709‎  Undid revision 1106839223 by 204.16.94.194 (talk)This has been discussed at some length, e.g., at Talk:Genspect and Talk:Rapid onset gender dysphoria. Removed per WP:ONUS pending CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

curprev 18:50, 26 August 2022‎ 204.16.94.194 talk‎ 15,318 bytes +709‎  Undid revision 1106722973 by Newimpartial (talk) 40+ years and recognized expert by Ohio State Medical Board. Go to Talk but he isn't fringe just because you say he is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_B._Levine undo Tags: Undo Reverted

curprev 03:30, 26 August 2022‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 14,609 bytes −709‎  Undid revision 1106721818 by 204.16.94.221 (talk)He's with Genspect. He's FRINGE. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

curprev 03:19, 26 August 2022‎ 204.16.94.221 talk‎ 15,318 bytes +709‎  Undid revision 1105985472 by Newimpartial (talk) Not a fringe position. Stephen Levine is highly respected. undo Tags: Undo Reverted

22 August 2022 curprev 17:52, 22 August 2022‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 14,609 bytes −709‎  →‎Career: We should not be including medical content cited to a FRINGE practitioner and published in a partisan source, the reliability of which carries "no consensus" per WP:RSN. Reorganized accordingly. undo Tag: Reverted
 * Rangeblocked for a period of one month, as they're now edit-warring as . Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:2035:7400:DB4:9C4E:511F:B0DC reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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:

May need IP range block as there is also this edit from an IP in the same range. DeCausa (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IP edit warring same issue at Eastern Anatolia Region. DeCausa (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72h by Ad Orientem. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1007:B057:7A58:8542:9DA1:16D0:74F reported by User:Ferien (Result: Blocked
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Wheaties (HG) (3.4.10)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violating WP:GENDERID, despite talk page messages and reverts saying about this. --Ferien (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   20:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC))

User:79.70.231.18 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Notable guests */"
 * 2)  "/* Notable guests */It’s been confirmed, don’t remove it"
 * 3)  "/* Notable guests */"
 * 4)  "/* Notable guests */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Star Trek: Picard (season 3)."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Star Trek: Picard (season 3)."
 * 3)   "/* August 2022 */ Stop"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I semi'ed the article. Although this IP is the most recent and persistent, there are a bunch involved in adding this same detail without cite. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Same user is now adding the same info at Star Trek: Picard. Twice so far. Can we get a rangeblock? -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   20:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Ze972 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Zirid dynasty."
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Battle of Sagrajas."

Comments:
 * They have now blown past 8R. M.Bitton (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Vicpumu reported by User:Sakiv (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1107306220 by Erminameraz (talk) Busquets have 683 Barça appearences. Official appearences source:"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1107306368 by Erminameraz (talk) Alba did not play against Valladolid. Official appareances source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/players/4958/jordi-alba ——— For Busquets source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/players/4963/sergio-busquets"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1107303913 by Erminameraz (talk) Alba did not play against Valladolid. Official appareances source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/en/football/first-team/players/4958/jordi-alba"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1107286076 by Mediocre Legacy (talk) Real Valladolid's name cannot be cut off just like Real Madrid"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1107286076 by Mediocre Legacy (talk) Real Valladolid's name cannot be cut off just like Real Madrid"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They were warned by several users, but did not respond. Sakiv (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The reversals have been sufficiently justified. The editions were unsourced and erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Explanation of reverts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erminameraz#Unsourced_edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This complaint has been consciously prepared in advance with the purpose of banning me in a cruel way. I ask that the actions of Sakiv be investigated, since coincidentally his first editions in today's day has been the present denunciation of my reverts. And also the actions of Erminameraz who justifies his edits by saying that the official sources are wrong and only his personal statistics are valid without attaching any sources. It must be said that these are two users who have been editing Wikipedia for quite a few years and know perfectly well that a statistical edition without a reliable source cannot be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 11:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Explication of reverts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erminameraz#Unsourced_edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicpumu (talk • contribs) 11:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Since you are involved in a content dispute, why have you not started a thread on this issue at Talk:2022–23 FC Barcelona season? —C.Fred (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No evidence that this is a bad-faith report. They may have had the Barça season page on their watchlist; there's nothing malicious about the report being their first edit of the day. It may even be evidence of giving the benefit of the doubt, of waiting to see what happened overnight instead of reporting the night before. —C.Fred (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * --Hammersoft (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:User10281129 reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Idk how to restore in Wikipedia. But im definitely restoring to the stable version."
 * 2)  "Hello. If you want to change content to how you think it should be, then use talk page first. Currently, Your edits are brings a lots of controversies. And you are definitely aware of this."
 * 3)  "WP:NOR"
 * 4)  "I had to restore the stable version several times thanks to persistent vandalism. I warned you several times but you are still changing content without using talk page. Your edits are brings a lots of controversies. And you are definitely aware of this. Hanbok is not even Chinese clothes. Stop this kind of nationalistic vandalism."
 * 1)  "I had to restore the stable version several times thanks to persistent vandalism. I warned you several times but you are still changing content without using talk page. Your edits are brings a lots of controversies. And you are definitely aware of this. Hanbok is not even Chinese clothes. Stop this kind of nationalistic vandalism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Is Hanbok the traditional clothes of Korean-Chinese or not? Is Hanbok a part of Chinese culture? */ Reply"

Comments:

A new user with only nationalist edits deleting large, long-standing sections of the article. Esiymbro (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

he keep changing content to how he think it should be. For example, he is arguing that Hanbok(traditional Korean clothes) is a part of Chinese culture. Thus I just had to restore the stable version due to WP:NOR. persistent vandalism with original research cannot acceptable.(stable version that has been in use for a long time ☞ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanbok&oldid=1102896065) Basically their motivation is based on their opinion that immigrant's culture can be a part of Chinese culture. There was no reliable source that Hanbok(traditional Korean clothes) can be a part of Chinese culture. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hanbok#Is_Hanbok_the_traditional_clothes_of_Korean-Chinese_or_not%3F_Is_Hanbok_a_part_of_Chinese_culture%3F) His opinion is based on Chinese communist party's argument.(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/hanbok-beijing-winter-olympics-opening-sparks-south-korea-chinan-anger). And Its not even nationalistic edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the Korean Chinese not ethnic Koreans, is their national clothing not the same? And how do you justify the rest of your edits, deletions of well-sourced sections on Hanbok's history and development? Esiymbro (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote Hanbok is a part of Chinese culture by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that you have started blatantly lying I don't see any point continuing the discussion further. Esiymbro (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I never understood the Korean nationalist fascination with "Chinese claiming Hanbok is a part of Chinese culture". When did anyone ever written anything like that in the article? What harm it is to have a section about new developments of Hanbok in the Korean-Chinese community? Esiymbro (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

there is an argument from the Chinese communist party and China that Hanbok(Traditional Korean clothes) is a part of Chinese culture because it is also a traditional clothes of Korean-Chinese, a minority ethnic group in China.(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/hanbok-beijing-winter-olympics-opening-sparks-south-korea-chinan-anger) but Korean-Chinese people are just immigrants from Korea. And there is no country who claims immigrants culture as a part of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC) l

Look:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1105756998. This is the cause of the controversy. "14,738 BYTES ADDED, 7 DAYS AGO"

The question is why do they add China to the introduction section of Hanbok even though Hanbok is not theirs? They wrote Hanbok in Chinese, and they wrote about Hanbok as if it were traditional Chinese clothing. Basically their motivation is based on their opinion that immigrant's culture can be a part of Chinese culture. There was no reliable source that Hanbok(traditional Korean clothes) can be a part of Chinese culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User10281129 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:82.132.214.74 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Article-space block, 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1107403378 by MrOllie (talk) stop introducing grammar errors, factual inaccuracies, and violations of clear, common sense guidelines"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1107402750 by MrOllie (talk) see WP:WTW. No evidence of any reason to ignore clear, common sense guidelines"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1107399456 by McSly (talk) consensus exists. See WP:WTW. if you think there is some reason that this article should violate clear, common sense guidelines, you need to say what it is"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1107397515 by Blaze Wolf (talk) read WP:WTW. this is common sense."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1107397261 by McSly (talk) no, it's vague and subjective"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1107404470 by M.Bitton (talk) stop introducing grammar errors, factual inaccuracies, and violations of clear, common sense guidelines"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1107405281 by M.Bitton (talk) stop introducing grammar errors, factual inaccuracies, and violations of clear, common sense guidelines"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1107405723 by C.Fred (talk) see WP:WTW where the consensus is unambiguously described"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Controversial is vague */ Reply"

Comments: Probably worth noting that this is one of WP:BKFIP's recurring topics. - MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A clear, common sense guideline exists, which says that you should not use the vague and subjective word controversial, but should give the reader information about whatever controversies exist. No reason has been offered as to why this article should ignore that clear, common sense guideline. 82.132.214.74 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * None of that is an exception to WP:3RR, though. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * from article space. This allows the IP to engage in discussion at the talk page, as they are supposed to do when an edit is challenged. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Deevlash reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Notices)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Updated to include liquidation facts"
 * 2)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."
 * 1)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."
 * 1)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."
 * 1)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."
 * 1)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."
 * 1)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."
 * 1)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."
 * 1)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."
 * 1)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."
 * 1)  "Updated trophy information to distinguish the liquidated club from the new one."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* rangers liquidation */ please stop"
 * 2)   "/* rangers liquidation */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rangers F.C.."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Rangers F.C. is under a one-revert restriction (1RR) due to discretionary sanctions. Both parties to this report are now notified. This admin recommends any 1RR blocks only be issued for edits made after this point. —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: Rangers F.C. is covered by WP:AC/DS under the WP:TROUBLES case. Both editors have been notified by User:C.Fred about the WP:1RR restriction which applies to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Gaz84avfc reported by User:NebY (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Susan Maxwell */"
 * 2)  "/* Susan Maxwell */"
 * 3)  "/* Susan Maxwell */"
 * 4)  "/* Susan Maxwell */"
 * 5)  "/* Susan Maxwell */Added information from Shane Meadows Wikipedia page."
 * 6)  "/* Susan Maxwell */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Robert Black (serial killer) */ see Talk:Robert Black (serial killer)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Shane Meadows */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Shane Meadows */ not for inclusion here"

Comments: Reported editor has not engaged on article talk page or own talk page. NebY (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:BoeingEngineer reported by User:Mys 721tx (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There are 4 references all stating the same numbers. You cannot discredit all the references."
 * 2)  "Why not? Daily Mail is reliable."
 * 3)  "The references clearly stated the numbers."
 * 4)  "More references are added that satisfy RS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Type 052D destroyer."
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Type 052D destroyer."
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Type 052D destroyer."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Previously User:RovingPersonalityConstruct noted a problem with unreliable sources (Special:Diff/1107545675). Mys_721tx (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mys_721tx, you have not warned the user about edit warring. I'll do so for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

User:2a00:23c8:ab80:8001:85ca:64c7:5d2:e5f1 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Anon now appears to have a new account:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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:
 * Marmo59

Comments:

Removing assessment of archeologist Kim Ryholt that an article is of low quality. ES of "Neutral facts only. This is now damaging your reputation why are you unable to and refusing to abide by explicit wiki rules?", and others. Adakiko (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty bad but I have semi-protected the article and will watch for a while, and will advise the IP and the new account about how things work. If problems continue, please ping me from article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Opinions of references authors are not relevant. It goes against neutrality and it is not acceptable. No other article would allow this so why this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Well go on tell me how it does not go against neutrality to write that? Why is it needed? Why can it not just be described as a stele like other articles do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:AB80:8001:85CA:64C7:5D2:E5F1 (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Stoarm reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1107717505 by Praxidicae (talk) For starters, source 6 (Parade): "Greiner has invented more than 600 products"; source 8 (ABC): "She is recognized as one of the most prolific inventors of retail products of our time." Read the others. Her notability stemmed from her inventions, which led to her being an entrepreneur and Tv personality."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1107716342 by Praxidicae (talk) Unacceptable edit summary, with no logical objection stated. Take it to the talk page with your friend."
 * 3)  "If you do not understand the very clear edit summary, nor the difference between an entrepreneur and an inventor, then you should stop edit anything relating to them. Protocol is to list the individual facets of one's notability.Do not continue edit warring over undisputable content that's been included in this article ever since this article was created 10 years ago. Take it to the talk page and get consensus if you want to discuss it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1107561512 by ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) Please educate yourself on the difference between the two. They are completely separate. Although one can most certainly be both, most entrepreneurs are not inventors, and many inventors are not entrepreneurs."
 * 5)  "l/c"
 * 1)  "l/c"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring, see also their history of edit warring as an IP (self declared here) <span style="color: snow; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(DarkGreen, Green, DarkOliveGreen, ForestGreen, SeaGreen)">PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

User:TE(æ)A,ea. reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve:

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

Comments: 5 reverts in 24h, had been repeatedly warned by other users for edit warring. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 17:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There was also this from just a few days ago (diffs in thread): Talk:FBI search of Mar-a-Lago when a lot of reverts were happening without (prior) discussion. Luckily that conflict seems to have petered out, but I agree that conversation beforehand and WP:Consensus building would be more productive than reverting the work of others without discourse (beyond simply the back and forth of edit summaries). Thanks everyone. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * from editing the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Litch reported by User:Jauerback (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "animal rights"
 * 2)  "animal rights group controverys"
 * 3)  "Animal Rights"
 * 4)  "Restoring widely discussed section on their attempt to reject an animal rights group"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Ts4221 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:
 * This appears to be a continuation of above.
 * Also see "Article neutrality" on wp:AN

Previous version reverted to: I subsequently fixed a ref, added a page no, and isbn.

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:

This would appear to be a continuation of a previous edit war as mention at the top. Attitude of Ts4221 appears similar to that anon and new editor. Adakiko (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Either WP:MEATPUPPET or WP:SOCKPUPPET. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko: While this was an obvious case, technically you were edit warring as well. There is never a good reason to do that even if the revert is exempt from WP:3RR and there is no exemption for this case. What is the point of reverting someone is obviously going to revert you back? Please avoid that in the future and just report it. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)