Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive460

User:Sakiv reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: User talk:Sakiv

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

Comments:

While this is not a violation of 3RR, I have been instructed to report editors here who continue to re-insert uncited material after its been deleted. I include the last two examples above to show that this editor finally understood the issue and provided a source for the second article, but the first article still has been re-added without sourcing, (although an additional source was added).
 * I don't know what to tell you frankly.--Sakiv (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the same case, I can report you for emptying entire articles instead of nominating them for deletion or tagging them with tags like more citations needed. This should not be so hard. Match schedule from another article with no sources at all.--Sakiv (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't quite like the recent issue with radio, where the uncited material in question was in an article about a core subject and had been there for years before an editor removed it, provoking risible claims of disruption and edit warring on the grounds that if the community had not acted to find sources for it lo these many years, then there was a consensus to leave it unsourced as "uncontroversial". Here the articles are new and not about core subjects, and as the reporter concedes, facially this does not violate 3RR. All the same, that's a lot of material to put into an article with such minimal citation., would you be open to moving these into draft- or userspace while you work on getting them more adequately cited? That's worked for me on quite a few articles where I have needed a lot of citations and wouldn't want to expose to drive-by tagging in mainspace. I know, I know, you could say that there's a lot of other soccer-season articles that sit in mainspace with minimal or no citation. But that's OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and those articles aren't being reported here as the subject of edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for your detailed response. So are you going to remove the unsourced material from the article?  I do not want to get in difficulty or accused of edit-warring, but neither should the unsourced material remain as per WP:BURDEN, which is policy.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Daniel, to be clear, the articles generally consist of tables and templates (i.e. football box). So the article may seem lacking in sources, but that is inaccurate. First the matches were all included in the first BDFutbol reference and that's what I did in the last edit. Secondly, the article is still under development.--Sakiv (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I must say the sources I saw looked mostly like a database and are sure not an RS. One on a transfer by the BBC. The article has almost no prose, its more like a database fan page. It is informative, in that case, there is no doubt, but it is not verifiable as there are no sources and the few there are, are databases. The question is more, is this allowed, is it this what we want wikipedia to be? If @Sakiv wants to still work on it, I suggest you work on it in draft space.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Questions about whether BDFutbol is an RS should be taken up at RSN if they haven't been already. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the matches are all included in the first reference, that reference should be there as well as at the beginning of the article. It isn't too hard to do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They're not, which is why I removed them. If an article is sourced, yet lacks footnotes, it would be tagged that way.  Or at least I try to.  This is not that case.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, nothing's stopping you from moving it into draft space yourself. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, draftified after having tried and failed to source some info while double checking the source of La Liga which meant to source info from the season 2001/2002 but was on games from the season 2022/2023...Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Seepsimon reported by User: Ayaltimo (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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 warnings by other user's on Seepsimon's talk page:

Comments: This user lies and makes a bad revert by calling the UN estimation "Reverted after vandalism. Unsourced contents" The user has been called out by another user for making bad reverts. The user still decides to engage in an edit-war with two users and has broken the 3rd policy. Ayaltimo 02:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ayaltimo You are so smart enough. You are the one who is vandalizing, and at the same time you are the one who is reporting me here. You are removing the most reliable sources and adding poor unrelated sources to Somalis inorder to write what you wants. How many reliable sources you have removed at once there, it isn't one nor two but more reliable sources. I didn't add or remove anything. I only reverted the last reliable source you have removed before and this isn't vandalism or bad revert Please stop making violation on the wikipedia page. Plus don't take as evidence my mistakes that I have made when I was new to wikipedia. Now I am advanced wiki editor. I am always ready to respect the wikipedia rules and law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seepsimon (talk • contribs) 05:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First you claim I've provided an unsourced content then you change your mind and say it is a poor unrelated source? Please explain to me how the Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division from the United Nations is unreliable? That is a verified website owned by the United Nation. It provides reliable population estimations which is related to the population section which I updated from. Again, you're lying and as for your other lie that I removed many sources. I simply removed two references to provide an update census which also includes Somaliland. I hope the admins can see what is going on here and take action. Ayaltimo 09:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * . See also WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Varoon2542 reported by User:116.71.160.23 (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]

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

Comments: He is habitual edit warrior. He had warnings from other editors on his talk page. Other editors also try to reason but he doesn't listen.

Comments: Hello Blaze Wolf. The complaint is being made by 116.71.160.23. It seems to me that 116.71.160.23 is just a single editor hopping IPs. Other unidentified users include 116.71.190.39, 103.255.7.58 has already been blocked, 39.50.63.26 has just been created. I find it a bit rich that unidentified editors who don't even have a user page are complaining against me. The only identified one is Satrar. I've already sought arbitration for what I feel is hounding. ZLEA can confirm. I'm also keen on settling this issue. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's possible it's one person. Regardless I would prefer to not get involved in this. I simply fixed the header and gave you the required ANEW notice on your talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Muruganadimai reported by User:Extorc (Result: 1 week block)
Pages:



User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts in last 24 hours
 * Chola dynasty:
 * 1) 14:34, 6 October 2022
 * 2) 15:03, 6 October 2022‎
 * 3) 20:39, 6 Ocotber 2022
 * 4) 21:11, 6 October 2022
 * 5) 21:47, 6 October 2022‎


 * Rajendra Chola I:


 * 1) 14:28, 6 October 2022
 * 2) 14:47, 6 October 2022
 * 3) 15:06, 6 October 2022‎
 * 4) 20:35, 6 October 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Relentless edit warrior, avoiding communication. Also terming every single opposing edit as "vandalism". Clearly WP:NOTHERE. >>> Extorc . talk  22:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Totally untrue. I'm trying to maintain the WP:STATUSQUO . The matter is in discussion but the editor Exorc.talk is relently trying to keep the narrative on his side on the article without engaging in a discussion. Let us reach a conscience in the talk page Talk:Rajendra Chola I. Muruganadimai (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's few more details.
 * In the page Chola dynasty I added Shivism under the religion section of the template with scholarly citations which mentions that Cholas were follower of Saivam(Saiva Siddhanta) religion. A user named FofS&E changed the cited content: So i had to undo it and explained him of the citations. I only tried to maintain WP:STATUSQUO . The user and I are having a discussion in the Talk page Talk:Rajendra Chola I and nobody have reached a conscience. Extorc.talk throwed all kind of warning at me at his disposal and did disruptive editing even after explaining things to him clearly. While this issue is in discussion Extorc.talk( the user who reported me here) added a citation from no where to change the narrative (While things are still being discussed) to his side while giving no respect to WP:STATUSQUO policies.
 * So no I did not engage in edit wars or disruptive editing. I was merely trying to maintain the status quo and protect the cited contents while also engaging in discussions in the Talk section. Muruganadimai (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are putting unsourced information as you already admit and made reverts even after this report. On talk page you said "Give me a week time to post a detailed supporting arguments on this. Until then please maintain status quo", but accusing others of vandalism when they are using sourced information. You do seem WP:NOTHERE. 103.249.233.126 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a sourced information. This citations are scholarly references. Ah "give me a week time is for discussion" where between me and a username FofS&E. I need time to respond with more details. He was the one who started the discussion and we are discussing weather Cholas were shaivites or not. He needs more information on this and I'm willing to provide him that. Please read our discussion before you jump into conclusion and manipulate your words here about what's being discussed.
 * Wikipedia Discussions should last more than a week at least and you cannot close it without a conscience. Until the you maintain Status Quo which is Chola's and the empires religion is Shaivism.  Muruganadimai (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You claim you have citations but you need a week to produce them. You really need a block until you grasp how things are done here. Currently, you are just refusing to listen. 103.249.233.126 (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you in such hurry to change it that favours your narrative? Do you know the wikipedia policy that discussions should go more than a week? You want me to block me and stop me from having a constructive discussion while in fact you are the one who involved in disruptive editing and not maintaining status quo. Muruganadimai (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that User:Muruganadimai should be blocked for edit warring. He made 24 edits today (October 6) and the majority of those edits were either reverting others or were reverted by other editors. If you spend all your time reverting that could be a sign you aren't trying very hard to reach agreement. WP:NOT3RR does not make any allowance for edits intended to maintain the 'status quo' whatever that may be. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 week. Some of their edits were way past 3RR and when you are reverting multiple different editors that is usually a sign that there is a problem. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Ejacobs8990 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Warned)
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:

Comments:


 * Ejacobs is an inexperienced WP:SPA who created the article Krista Varady and probably has a WP:COI. At the other end of the spectrum, Bon courage is a very experienced editor who decided that much of the material in the article was inappropriate for different reasons (I'm not going into the merits of the content dispute) and removed it. The present state of the article is Bc's version. Ejacobs has violated WP:3RR, but principally because another editor has reverted them twice believing that the burden is on Ejacobs to justify their "massive changes" and gain consensus, when it is really the other way around. In the discussion about the changes, which has occurred mostly on Ejacobs's Talk page, Bc has been dismissive, and Ejacobs (foolishly) has attacked Bc calling them "sexist". Some of the points I've made here have been highlighted by in the discussion on Ejacobs's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Ejacobs8990 is warned for edit warring at Krista Varady and for making personal attacks against other editors. ("What you are doing is sexist. I am reporting your behavior at many levels."). When others oppose your article changes you should not leap to accuse them of bad faith. Wikipedia gets many promotional submissions and it takes a bit of time for a new editor to understand how new material is negotiated here. If you can't reach agreement, consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Noah526330 reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked one week)
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: User talk:Aoidh

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

Comments: Diffs 4–7 show that they violated 3RR, but the others have been added to show that this has been ongoing. Despite being reverted by multiple editors they continue to edit war to their preferred version. As I explained to the editor on my talk page, the current wording is the result of a consensus (here) and that if they want to change it, they should discuss it on the article's talk page, and that continuing to edit war would result in being reported. Their response was to continue to edit war. - Aoidh (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added diff 8 above, as they continue to edit-war even after being notified of this discussion (which they did see). - Aoidh (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:MikaelEmanuelsson reported by User:Iaof2017 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  User's IP
 * 2)  Main
 * 3)  Main
 * 4)  Second or third account

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The reported user, along with his other accounts, is repeatedly removing sourced content (8,393 characters) without legitimate reasons. He started with his IP, then with his account and is currently continuing with his (second or third) account. He has a history of edit warring and disruptive editing across other discography-related topics, as for instance with his other account @Helptottt. According to his statement on the article's talk page, I assume that it makes no sense to lead a discussion because he "will keep reverting [my] edits". Both also have the same insulting manner. Iaof2017 (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . The proper venue for alleging sock puppetry is WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite that, the user is still violating the three-revert rule . Iaof2017 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They reverted twice on October 5 - that's it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Magnatyrannus reported by User:116.71.10.181 (Result: Nominator blocked for disruptive editing)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: Respected admins I'm trying to add a reliable reference in the article Nayyara Noor but this user is reverting again and again by calling me a sock. Please keep in mind that he remained block for edit war and sock puppetry
 * This IP has been using multiple other IPs to edit war, so this thread is bogus. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 17:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is also another case of a user to joe job me. Also, FYI, the page has been semi-protected to prevent further disruptive editing. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 17:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Respected admins! This user has reverted edits more than 4 times and didn't discuss it first on the talk page though I tried my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.10.181 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * . DatGuyTalkContribs 17:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:B1958B reported by User:Zamekrizeni (Result: p-block one week both)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 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: B1958B edited the article Johan Roijakkers. I removed unsourced content and made corrections (spelling, grammar, links) which the user keeps reverting. I asked to add additional sources which has been done in one case, while other content remains unsourced-


 * This looks like a content dispute. You and need to sort it out on the talk page. I hope you can do it willingly, rather than needing to have an admin protect the article while you do. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am sure we can. I am working in the field of basketball, I know all this information very and added many sources and will add more. B1958B (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred going through the revisions and reverts it seems that @Zamekrizeni has attempted to use the talk page but the other user has continued to revert the changes. might be a case of NOTHERE Tdshe /her 17:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing that at all, because there are some constructive edits in the mix, like fixing the name of the competition. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I changed the name of the competition, it is called EasyCredit BBL. I don't know @Zamekrizeni why keeps changing back these things ! B1958B (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred the user @Zamekrizeni said this 2 times after making edits "User talk:B1958B" Tdshe /her 17:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred both users seem to be reaching a census about how to change the page might be worth to close? Tdshe /her 17:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * (p-block) both. Zamekrizeni is at 7RR, B1958B is at 9RR, something has to give. El_C 18:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Justdad78 reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  (for reverts 1 and 2)
 * 2)  (for revert 3)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

While I usually wait until an editor has gone past the 3RR bright line before filing here, I decided to take a preventative approach this time because the editor's three reverts so far were made in less than two hours, because they were made by an account with no edits outside of this topic, because the third revert was made well after the editor received the 3RR notice, and because the editor seems to believe that revert-warring when faced with the policy-based opposition of three other editors is a fine thing to do. I don't believe the community is quite so accepting of marching quickly up to the bright line, and in any event further disruption should be prevented if possible, in my view. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A new account, Lapelyoke, took over precisely where the blocked account left off. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Davide King reported by User:Est. 2021 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Too many, at least 35 intermediate edits: link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Giorgia Meloni

Comments:

In addition, the user falsely accused me of deleting sources three times, despite I had kept all the refs. He insisted on the fact my version of the page has -525 characters, but it's all about wording and punctuation, I removed no paragraph nor reference, you can check. On the other hand, he deleted paragraphs and references multiple times. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I literally warned you both about edit warring  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I already said, I'm actually the user who started the Talk:Giorgia Meloni before the edit war, and I'm the user who reported this edit war to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard before getting to this critic point. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is a bright line, even if you do the correct things in addition.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just warned them again seeing it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * As discussion is taking place on the talk page, and there have been no reverts (indeed, only one edit) to the article today, I think we should let things work out there, with the caveat that if edit-warring resumes there will be blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf reported by User:103.141.102.6 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Vif12vf

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

Comments:

The user used no edit summaries in reversion, making it difficult to ascertain their disagreement. After the third reversion, they posted a vandalism block warning on my talk page. The user has thus far demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion either on the article talk page as requested or on their talk page where the request was posted. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A summary of my main attempted contributions to the infobox are as follows: 103.141.102.6 (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding the anthem used across VOC colonies of the time.
 * Changing the historical era to something more relevant.
 * Removing unused fields and whitespace.


 * Adding more specificity to the list of religions.
 * Adding the type of government.
 * 103.141.102.6 (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , per the discussion cited as an attempt to resolve dispute. The IP cannot litigate their way to their preferred version via a noticeboard posting. If there is a legitimate content dispute, the IP needs to initiate discussion at the articles talk page and get consensus there. —C.Fred' (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Litigation to get a "preferred version" is not the intent, resolution is. A failed attempt has already been made to initiate discussion as per the above notes and the dispute has reached a stalemate. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you have edited the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refer above link under Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I can copy the contents of the discussion for formality's sake, if you require. 101.98.249.78 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did; it is not a link to the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is precisely what I said. Since you have not accepted my offer to transfer a copy of the discussion to the article's talk page, your reply leads me to conclude that the content of the discussion is insufficient on my part. If that is correct, then please explain on what could be further added to what has been said. 101.98.249.78 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the thread above did you directly suggest that the user talk conversation be transferred to article talk. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm afraid I don't know how I could be more direct than "I can copy the contents of the discussion for formality's sake, if you require." Regardless of how, the degree of my directness is not entirely relevant, is it? Now that I know that you know what I meant, do you want a transfer after all, or do you have another suggestion? 103.141.102.6 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we please remove the case result until it the case is fully resolved, otherwise it could get procedurally archived? 101.98.249.78 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The case is resolved. I see no need for administrative action at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, what has been resolved? The issue I came to have resolved, which is my inability to make contributions due to editing waring by another user, is still ongoing. What have you changed? 101.98.249.78 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the three days since you filed the case, you have made no attempts to discuss the matter anywhere but here. I just verified that there is no protection applied to Talk:Dutch Cape Colony, so nothing prevents you from posting there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is correct because as far as I am concerned, I already made an unsuccessful attempt at discussion prior to this filing, albeit on the user in question's talk page, and have no reason to believe that continuing the discussion on either the article's or the user's talk page will serve any further purpose without mediation. (I never intended to discuss the article on their talk page, it just turned out in that way.) 103.141.102.6 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Were I to continue, what about the matter would you have me discuss in any event, that hasn't already been covered on their talk page already? 103.141.102.6 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not practical to expect article editors to read discussion at a user's talk page. Discussion about editing an article should be at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There you go - although it's not obvious to me how much doing so will improve practicality in this situation, I've copied it over as you've implied. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Bechtcha000 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits: Cast gets listed in credit order."
 * 2)  "I changed the order, so this editing is not disruptive."
 * 3)  "Reverted good faith edits: Misordered cast"
 * 4)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There was a warning sent to their talk page, but they removed it, indicating that they might refuse to cooperate. Liliana UwU (talk / contribs) 02:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * They also removed the notice of AN3 discussion, further proving my point. Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 02:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still edit warring after the report was issued. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * by . Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 03:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

User:85.238.103.38 reported by User:Politanvm (Result: rangeblocked 1mo)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1114966260 by Politanvm (talk) it's clear working email - you can try to send something there."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1114963516 by Izno (talk) I can do like you too. WP:NOT"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1114961520 by Izno (talk) please read mentioned template website fieid description first. We can discuss only after WP:NOT violation will be removed, which exactly I do."
 * 4)  "Initially that's clear email - you can send email there and it will be delivered. Template:Cite web allows using wikilinking there, so I see it as consensus."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user is making some helpful edits, but has been overzealous in removing email addresses even when they are direct quotes, citation titles, or non-emails that have a similar format. Many users have tried to talk to IP about their editing, with no success. <span style="background: linear-gradient(gray, #111111); color: white; font-family: Times New Roman, Georgia;">Politanvm talk 06:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reporter definitely lied, as:
 * had place with only editor who was first reverted my reported edit had place and who did not revert my edit anymore.
 * Reporter himself did not even try to discuss reported edit - and just continued edit warring of previous editor to lead the situation to WP:EW application. As it was told at above mentioned discussion real emails at articles clearly violate WP:NOT and reporter just returned violation despite was informed it have place there (,, etc. previously). So probably question here is what have more priority - WP:NOT or WP:EW and not manually created by 2 registered users "3-reverts" edit warring itself. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked 1 month at the /19 based on past warnings and discussion. See Special:Diff/1115003660. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 10:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Havsjö reported by User:Beyond My Ken (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)

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 "Beyond My Ken" attempts to change long-standing (Feb 2020- Sep 2022) version of page without discussion. However, a civil discussion has since been opened on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francoist_Spain#%22Fascist%22? --Havsjö (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note, that the version I reverted to was the very long-standing version prior to February 2020, and that Hasvjo continued to revert even after I opened the discussion and invited him (on his talk page) to make his objections known there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another day, and Hasvjo makes another revert of the same material, which was restored by another editor (not me). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * from the article to encourage continued discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:50.81.166.34 reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Page protected; user blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1114921469 by Jlvsclrk (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1114920892 by Jlvsclrk (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1114911792 by Jlvsclrk (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1114897683 by Jlvsclrk (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1114889792 by Jlvsclrk (talk) undoing edits cause equibase is the official database and I refuse to believe they made 8 mistakes and wrote Kent down as jockey, other info such as 10 weeks in Japan is recorded by blood horse, so is the 597 actually being record"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1114856977 by Jlvsclrk (talk) the so called evidence on YouTube would have tripped the horse to be able to knock the felt off the helmet, he just ran on. Ever heard of fake or edited footage or special effect? Ever heard of record keeping of races? They have record of changes made to those cards. UPI said big brown was trying to become 13th triple crown winner. These things can’t even get the numbers correct half the time."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1114752954 by Jlvsclrk (talk) user removing up to date sources. As well as most reliable sources such as equibase. Which shows he fell. But same day and following day he raced. It contains info that late scratches occurred and Kent would have been taken off"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kent Desormeaux."
 * 2)   "/* October 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 598 */ Reply"

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

Comments:
 * indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Tamilpadai reported by User:Extorc (Result: Indeffed as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts in last 24 hours


 * 1) 17:50, 8 October 2022‎
 * 2) 21:02, 8 October 2022‎
 * 3) 05:25, 9 October 2022
 * 4) 06:23, 9 October 2022‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Unresponsive relentless edit warrior marking edits as minor. >>> Extorc . talk  07:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's my response:
 * All i did was trying to maintain WP: Status quo.
 * On 11:30, 5 October 2022‎: four reliable sources was cited to the religion section of the info box stating Shivaism was the religion of Cholas instead of un cited hinduism.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1114217676
 * On 14:59, 6 October 2022‎ user FoS&E vandalized the cited content (that is the religion is Shivaism) to Hinduism. Here's the four citations says the religion is Shivaism and the user edit the  cited content and made it Hinduism.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1114448688
 * On 20:09, 6 October 2022‎  user Extorc undid the edits by the other users who were trying to maintain the Status Quo(Shivaism as the religion in the article). Extorc argument was that he/she is maintaing the WP:STATUSQUO but his/her claim is untrue as the Status quo should be Religion as Shivaism rather Hinduism.
 * After clearly explaining him/her about the status quo they still disrupted the cited contents by adding a new source to favor his/her POV or narrative. The user Extorc did not discuss before adding a citation(that favours Hinduism) agints four citations that clearly suggest that Chola dynasty followed Saiva Religion.
 * On 20:15, 6 October 2022‎ Extorc went on to add new source to an already disputed content.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1114497705
 * The status quo is cited content Shivaism as religion and not united Hinduism. So i was trying to maintain WP: STATUSQUO and had to undo those who did not follow it even after explaining it to them:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1114973585
 * The four out of the Five citations support the religion of chola dynasty as Shivaism. Yes, I'm willing to engage in discussion but they have to change it back to Shivaism as it is the Status quo. Tamilpadai (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's my points and discussion about issue at the Chola Dynasty Talk page. : Talk:Chola dynasty Tamilpadai (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This user has made fifth revert now. >>>  Extorc . talk  15:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why so desperate to block me?
 * Yes, i did the fifth edit and it was not a revert. A user name named Chennai Super Kings Lover added questionable youtube and recent media sources to add Islam to the list of religion of Chola dynasty. I simply protected the page from dubious citations and in fact restored it to your last version until discussions conclude.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1115020311
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1115019222 Tamilpadai (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While also constructively engaging in Discussions: Talk:Chola dynasty
 * Thank you. Tamilpadai (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * by as a sock. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:EditorA2022 reported by User:Rsjaffe (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Draft:Euro-Collins."
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on draft:Euro-Collins."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User:84.65.78.92 reported by User:88.200.198.159 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 8.8 cm SK L/45 naval gun
 * 8.8 cm SK C/35 naval gun
 * German minelayer Hansestadt Danzig

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 8.8 cm SK L/45 naval gun:
 * ""
 * ""
 * "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
 * "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
 * 8.8 cm SK C/35 naval gun:
 * ""
 * ""
 * "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
 * "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
 * German minelayer Hansestadt Danzig:
 * ""
 * ""
 * "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
 * "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 8.8 cm SK L/45 naval gun:
 * 1)


 * 8.8 cm SK C/35 naval gun:
 * 


 * German minelayer Hansestadt Danzig:
 * 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: &  &  →

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

Comments: --88.200.198.159 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I see that the diff for 3rr warning for 8.8 cm SK L/45 naval gun, 8.8 cm SK C/35 naval gun and German minelayer Hansestadt Danzig was missing from the report and ANEW notice was missing from the edit warring report as well, now fixed Chip3004 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

Also subject of SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Eurocollins but want to stop their removal of copyright deletion template so that we can address the copyright issues promptly. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 19:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * – Indef as a sock per Sockpuppet investigations/Eurocollins. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:91.140.5.174 reported by User:SteliosGR (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Personal warning to stop such edits." (Note: This used deleted my talk message later from his talk page: )

Comments:

These edits are about the "positions by round" for the first matchday of the Greek football (soccer) first division. AEK and Aris had both won their respective games 3-0, AEK at Lamia and Aris at home against Levadiakos. Two different criteria make sense for the "positions by round" placement, when positions are equal: Alphabetical name (which name appears first when everything is tied) and away goals. However, away goals rule was abolished since 2022-23 for Greece, as it was abolished by UEFA in general since 2021-22. Even if this rule was in effect, AEK had scored 3 away goals in matchday one, while Aris had scored 0. Therefore, through both criteria, AEK should get the first position for the first round. It is not an option to award both teams the first position, as every team gets exactly one position per round per convention. More strongly though, the current convention for positions if every criterion is equal, is to put the highest alphabetically team on top, as can be seen for the tables of 2022–23 Super League Greece 2, which has not yet started.

This user has been constantly editing this, putting Aris in first place after round 1, with a comment of "away goals rule", which has no effect, but more importantly, no sense, as AEK would be in front even with this rule.

I made an edit warning the user about their mistake in their talk page and letting them know to refrain from such edits. The user never replied, removed my message from their talk page (11:58, 11 October 2022) and went on to make the edit for the third time (12:03, 11 October 2022). All these edits are linked above. SteliosGR (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * According to the EPO, the Super League, all radio and television media, sites and publications, Aris was 1st in the 1st matchday and AEK was 2nd.--91.140.5.174 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia needs official and reliable sources for what you are saying, not a weak claim that "all websites were saying that AEK was 2nd and Aris was 1st", which is not true and cannot be because of the numbers. And to add on this, sites I recall were claiming either side to be first, but obviously "sites I recall" does not stand as a point, since it is not something debatable or subjective. It is something that relies on numbers. Please, when there are no points for your statement, instead of trying to get your statement through with minor and weak statements, try to accept a situation and refrain from making unconstructive edits. You deleted again ) my message from your talk. SteliosGR (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Adding to the rest, this user also made an unconstructive edit in Akis Mantzios page, namely here: where he removed the full name (Apostolos) of the coach completely from 3 places that full name always appears. "Akis" is just his nickname. SteliosGR (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Masem reported by User:Rosedaler (Result: Nominator blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&oldid=1115146192

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115158294&diffmode=visual
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115169629&diffmode=visual
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115231105&diffmode=visual
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115255470&diffmode=visual
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115439061&diffmode=visual
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115476271&diffmode=visual
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115492868&diffmode=visual

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_video_games&type=revision&diff=1115494931&oldid=1115494620&diffmode=visual

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem&type=revision&diff=1115496733&oldid=1115496143&diffmode=visual

Comments:

User keeps bulk-reverting my edits without citing specific reasons, or reverting multiple edits when only one should be reverted. This user is also an administrator, which makes me surprised, given their reverting behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosedaler (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Here due to a talk page watch. I'm pondering that Rosedaler is headed towards a CIR/disruption block rather than an EW block. See their talk page and history of referring to other editors as making mistakes and errors, invalid removal of AFD tags, arguing that other editors actions are "mistakes" so they are free to revert, etc. Either way, Rosedaler has violated 3RR today, though the warning came afterwards. They have argued with the person who warned them that it didn't apply in their case. -- ferret (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3RR does not apply in this case. In all of my reversions, I have re-added at least a portion of the disputed content. This can only be seen by looking at two diffs in succession. I did it this way because it's easier to edit the page that way. Rosedaler (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the actions of the reporting editor including the couple of exchanges I had with them on my talk page, I predict a big BOOMERANG --McSly (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have cited very specific reasons on the talk page and summarized in the edit summaries. Namely poor use of sources, poor writing style problems and MOS issues, and attempts at large scale changes on a long standing article (BOLD is allowed but they should remember not to re-revert after being reverted). They seem well jntentioned but they also seem to have an unhealthy focus on AR and VR that doesn't follow the sources. M asem (t) 20:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The filer, User:Rosedaler, has committed a plain old 3RR violation on History of video games and it appears that they qualify for a standard 3RR block. Even if we leave aside the CIR issues mentioned by User:Ferret above. Rosedaler's removal of an AfD template was here. After 1576 edits you would assume that Rosedaler is not a complete newbie. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. See my above comment. Rosedaler (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I removed the AfD template by mistake but it is now re-added after another user helped me.
 * Also, I am in fact a complete newbie. I only started editing wikipedia a few weeks ago, with only a couple of IP edits before that. I'm not an alt or sock. Rosedaler (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Rosedaler for 72h. Also, unlike Masem, I do not believe that Rosedaler is "well intentioned".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I respectfully disagree with my colleague concerning intentions, I have just come from and endorse the block.  I agree with others above concerning competence issues. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I had to revoke TPA because of the disruption by the user on their Talk page, but that is outdone by miles by the user's activity at UTRS - I have never seen such rapid-editing nonsense in my life, including YouTube links and attacks and god knows what. I'm not sure what it takes for you to believe that a user does not have "good intentions",, if this doesn't do it for you. has asked me if I object to them indeffing the user, and I was on the fence until I saw the UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They are now indef'd. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still willing to chock it up to a lack of competence, which covers a lot of ground, but I think the indef is a great idea as an inevitable outcome. User should probably read Tamzin's essay. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:Panam2014 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Minahatithan reported by User:RPI2026F1 (Result: Partial block, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Slaves in Afghanistan were from all tribes and peoples. This article is really biased against an honorable people of Afghanistan."
 * 2)  "Please, I don't do editorial war, but it is better that the content is sourced and not biased. I have not removed sourced content and genuine content."
 * 3)  "True, but its time is different. This content is biased."
 * 4)  "This biased and untrue article does not exist in the source."
 * 5)  "Unsourced claim"
 * 6)  "No source. Although this happened to Hazara people once, but this position is not equal to Hazara people, Hazaras are far from this kind of positions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Slavery in Afghanistan."
 * 2)   "/* October 2022 */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* October 2022 */ Reply"

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

Comments:
 * from the article in question only. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

User:125.238.51.86 / User:Schadewink reported by User:Pokelova (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

Users 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:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments:

I do not have evidence of them being the same person, but it seems incredibly likely given the single-purpose nature of the account, removing the same content with the same (baseless) justification, switching between them when convenient in an attempt to skirt the 3RR. It is also possible that they are the subject of the article, as they are aware of it. After noticing the high traffic for a brand new low importance article, I visited the subjects Facebook page and saw that they had posted about the article. That post has since been either deleted or made non-public. --Pokelova (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You must notify both the named account and the IP of this report per the instructions at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oop, my bad. Done. --Pokelova (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Schadewink is CU-blocked. The page is semiprotected for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

User:198.91.132.130 reported by User:3mi1y (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1115783943 by 3mi1y (talk)"
 * 2)  "Evidence has been shown confirming accusations."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1095454897 by Kaotac (talk)"
 * 1)  "Evidence has been shown confirming accusations."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1095454897 by Kaotac (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "←Created page with 'Information orange.svg Please do not add or change content, as you did at Snail (company), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.'"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User repeatedly adding an unsourced accusation of cheating to a company's page, insistently reverting multiple editors' attempts to remove it. 3mi1y (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi 3mi1y, please use uw-ew or uw-ewsoft next time, and report if the edit warring continues after such a warning. I'm only taking action because there have been violations of the biographies of living persons policy, not because of the edit warring.
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted, thank you. 3mi1y (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Paddykumar reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to:

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

(The second and third reverts make slight language adjustments, but still share most of the content with the original addition and the first revert.)

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:

I know I am filing after "only" three reverts, but all three (so far) have been in less than two hours. Note that this is the second time Paddykumar has edit-warred over the same article in less than two weeks time. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Filing when someone has not violated 3RR is OK, but only one other such outburst of reverts in the last two weeks is not IMO enough to justify action here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel reported by User:111.119.188.25 (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]

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

Comments:

This user has a long history of edit war and also remained block. He intentionally edits pages related to Pakistan knowing fully well being Indian he must abstain from doing controversial edits. I am just raising my concern for such ethinical edit warriors whose history doesn't indicate any positive contributions to Wikipedia but they are just here to spread hatred. If we go deep into his edit history, it's mostly against Pakistan and it's ideology. I understand generally the sympathies are with Indian editors and they hardly get blocked for life time but I urge and ask all the administration how long it will continue? Especially I want to ask C.Fred. Thanks from my side
 * . I've blocked the IP for one week as a proxy; they've been blocked many times before. They also failed to notify of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

User:BreezewoodPA reported by User:Drmies (Result: Partial indef)
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:

Case is pretty simple: editor is an SPA who is edit warring over a photo and a caption. They did finally post something (something...) on the talk page--and then reverted again. I'll add that the user has been alerted to discretionary sanctions for BLPs and for AP. A partial block for that article might be a good idea. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments:


 * from Doug Mastriano. ~Swarm~  {sting} 05:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

User:USaamo reported by User:CapnJackSp (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:22, 12 October 2022‎ USaamo talk contribs‎ 56,073 bytes 0‎  Restored revision 1115317705 by WikiCleanerBot (talk): Get consensus on talk, these changes were thoroughly discussed on talkpage and an RfC too was conducted]
 * 2) 20:57, 12 October 2022 USaamo talk contribs‎ 56,073 bytes 0‎  Undid revision 1115680017 by Kerberous (talk) That disputed tag was added for discussion and what else do you think I would have done after that 14000 words long mammoth discussion involving almost everything. These edits were discussed in length and enough justification was provided for them!
 * 3) 06:43, 14 October 2022‎ USaamo talk contribs‎ 56,069 bytes −4‎  Undid revision 1115800066 by CapnJackSp (talk) it's sourced and we have a 14000 words long discussion for the purpose. Still if you think otherwise you can build a consensus on talk but before that status quo should be maintained!
 * 4) 11:26, 14 October 2022‎ USaamo talk contribs‎ 56,028 bytes +1,357‎  Restoring the last stable version for which a formal consensus was achieved through various talkpage discussions. For any new change consensus must be build.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to discuss the article on talk page:

Notification of the report to the user:

Comments:

Already blocked before for edit warring, he has also made 3 reverts on Pakistan in just 2 days, even after being warned to stop edit warring. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing. ~Swarm~  {sting} 17:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

User:137.186.197.136 reported by User:BlueNoise (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "lmfao this isn't edit warring, read my justifications, this is only contentious to one person who clearly didn't read the purpose of my edit, and another person who insanely thinks I'm homophobic. Being around for longer doesn't constitute the "best version", the original version is erroneous. It is simple, Kinsey's work is still controversial, it wasn't controversial in the 40's and 50's and now we're okay with every aspect of it."
 * 2)  "lmfao this isn't edit warring, read my justifications, this is only contentious to one person who clearly didn't read the purpose of my edit, and another person who thinks I'm homophobic. How is the less accurate version that is being vandalized the "best version", being around for longer doesn't constitute the "best version"
 * 3)  "I don't know how you think Kinsey's use of predominantly homosexual men as a point of reference for the sexuality of all men, is not only conducive to an accurate assessment, but any criticism somehow reflects poorly on my support of the LGTBQIA2S+. Let's stay relevant, I won't take your attempt to smear my character personally, his work is still controversial."
 * 4)  "Kinsey's observations of sex in abused children (that he got from a pedophile), prostitutes and predominantly homosexual men, is still heavily scrutinized and controversial in 2022. The idea that his work is only controversial in the context of the cultural norms of 50s and 60s is erroneous, I'm going to assume that you're not this rabid defender of Kinsey and just didn't read my edit clearly."
 * 5)  "the use of studies/statistics proctored from abused children, prostitutes and predominantly homosexual men, is still heavily scrutinized and controversial in 2022. No clue why the controversy is limited to the periods of the 40's and 50s."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by 137.186.197.136 (talk): Use the talk page."

Comments:

IP editor is continually restoring their edit with edit summaries along the lines of "this isn't edit warring because I'm right and the other party is disruptive". They also claim that only one editor disagrees with their edits, instead of three editors. BlueNoise (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "this isn't edit warring because I'm right and the other party is disruptive"
 * Which is true? What part of my edit is erroneous? One of the people gave no justification for removing my edit, one person insanely accused me of being homophobic.
 * The fact that you have absolutely no retort for why the controversy should be limited to the periods of the 40s and 50s, when his work is still incredibly controversial in the cultural context/norms of 2022, the fact that you're being reductive with the nature of my edits, just gives credence to your bad faith. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why, instead of continually restoring your edits, you should use the talk page to discuss with the other contributors who are involved how your edits are potentially non-constructive. As well as assuming bad faith on my part, when you're the one acting immature about the situation. BlueNoise (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the people removed my edit a minute later citing absolutely no reason, the second person said I was homophobic, you're saying I'm edit warring.
 * Who exactly do I have a discussion with about the relevant point of contention, i.e the actual article?
 * And yes, being reductive about my position in this situation and being another disruptive force on the page editing my contribution is the mature thing to do, I'm immature here. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not what happened.. left an edit summary, which you chose to ignore. Being dishonest isn't going to help your cause, you know. Just use the talk page to discuss your edits with Tgeorge, and  who are the contributors who originally disagreed with your edits. BlueNoise (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "the second person said I was homophobic"
 * Seems like reading comprehension has been the issue this entire time, I seriously hope this report is dealt with sooner rather than later. 137.186.197.136 (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The meaning is opaque. Fact is that you have put homosexual men in the same row as pedophiles and prostitutes. Your text was too short to make heads or tails of what you mean. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Restoring your edit continually when it was reverted is disruptive, bottom line. That's what you were doing. You took no steps to address the issue, that's why I filed this 3RR report. You were edit warring. I'm glad that you've now decided to use the talk page. Seeing as you feel you have such a strong case in defense of your contribution, then using the talk page should be no issue. Speaking for Tgeorge, and confirming he was indeed calling you homophobic is a stretch. Maybe he just misunderstands where you are coming from in the basis for your edit. BlueNoise (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not call them homophobic, I said that statement looks homophobic. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Het666 reported by User:Venkat TL (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Sanctions alert - India Pakistan (RW 16.1)"

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

Comments:

Keeps edit warring to add controversial content without generating Talk page consensus to add it. Because of his edit warring the article was EC protected, but apparently he has EC rights now and the protection is of no use to stop his edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the article has never been ECP protected, and Het666 has been EC since June. Did you mean another article?  I also cannot see a blatant violation of 3RR here - can you provide the "Previous version reverted to:" information? Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey administrator i has just put referenced information and also added that points on talk page thereafter but this editor is giving me constantly threat to be banned Het666 (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite I am sorry, I misread. I had asked ECP but admin did not put ECP. I just noticed that protection that was put is for "autoconfirmed or confirmed access", and has been clearly useless for this page. Disruption continues. . I have added the previous version being reverted to link. and arranged the 2 set of diffs. Venkat TL (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK I still can't see a blatant 3RR violation here, and I note that El_C has fully protected the article now. Please repost if there are future issues. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

User:217.137.42.177 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Blocked for 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "NO! NO! NO! WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO!? PLEASE STOP THIS RIGHT NOW! I DON'T EVEN LIKE YOU REMOVING CONTENT."
 * 2)  "STOP IT RIGHT NOW!!!"
 * 3)  "CAN YOU PLEASE STOP REMOVING TELEVISION MOVIES!!?? YOU'RE RUINING EVERYHTING ON THIS ARTICLE!"
 * 4)  "Stop it, Geraldo Perez there are verified right. Please stop removing content on PURPOSE. NOW GO AWAY!"
 * 5)  "Content was removed for no reason."
 * 1)  "Content was removed for no reason."
 * 1)  "Content was removed for no reason."
 * 1)  "Content was removed for no reason."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of programs produced by ABC Signature."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Numerous pages engaged in edit warring and swearing in edit summaries Equine-man (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * by

User:41.113.8.238 reported by User:S0091 (Result: IP range blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistently changing "Black" to "African', which actually started on the 12th. After looking at the talk page, it had been discussed before so left the IP a message along with a soft edit warring notice which has now escalated to a hard warning.  Requesting a range block given their IP address changes. S0091 (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Range calculator came back with 41.113.0.0/17. See User contributions for 41.113.0.0/17. S0091 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This filing is moot now that the page is full protected which quells the disruption and forces discussion on the talk page. S0091 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: I've blocked the /17 range two weeks for vandalism. A named editor with similar views was reported back in 2019 at Sockpuppet investigations/Untrammeled/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

User:109.242.213.53 reported by User:SteliosGR (Result: Blocked 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Report for older IP: Link

Comments:

I am quite confident that this is the same user (with a different IP this time) that was reported and blocked for these edits. It is the same edit over again, and the user's talk page is filled again with erroneous elections results, as was the other IP's talk page. SteliosGR (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Θα προβώ σε μήνυση εναντίον σου γιατί με παρακολουθείς στην Βικιπαίδεια κάθε τι που κάνω πράγμα που είναι παράνομο η παρακολύθηση.

ΥΓ1: Να σκεπάζεσαι τα βράδια Στελάκο. ΥΓ2: Η σελίδα συζητήσεως μου είναι το πρόχειρο μου καθώς δεν μπορώ να έχω ξεχωριστό πρόχειρο.

--109.242.213.53 (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This user is threatening (in translation from Greek) that he will sue me, as he believes that I am watching him in Wikipedia and watching someone is illegal. Quite possibly this user ignores that it is visible in Wikipedia to see who edited what, which is something I am paying attention to in the 2022–23 Super League Greece page, and have come to inform this user only because this user keeps making the same erroneous edit in Wikipedia. I will keep doing this, no matter how many accounts this user creates and how many false threats this user will conduct. Additionally, "Να σκεπάζεσαι τα βράδια Στελάκο." means "cover yourself at night with the bedsheet (along with my name)", which is an insult - threat in Greek. Also, this user removed my message from their talk page which informs him that I reported them this edit. You should not remove warnings of other users from your talk page. Please do treat this user kindly, as they seem naive enough to ignore fundamental aspects of editing in Wikipedia, how the website works, dialogue and kind manners. SteliosGR (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: The user was reported for the legal threat here as well: Link. SteliosGR (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * for legal and physical threats, and generally disruptive abuse.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User:82.16.147.172 reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: Blocked)
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: Talk:Sunflowers_(Van_Gogh series)

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

Comments:

The initial section header that the IP was altering was "London version attempted vandalism" - it did get changed to "London version attempted criminal damage" which matched the sources for the section. Perhaps that means that the 3rr needed to reset but the title that they kept changing it too is the same through all the reverts. There is no sourcing for calling the incident a climate protest. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * – 1 month, after reviewing the IP's talk page and block log. Here is |the IP's anatomical advice of where to put the 3RR notice. EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User:IntrepidContributor reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Both editors blocked 24h; reporter from article and user reported sitewide)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1116216227 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) I looked and couldn't find any secondary sources stating that an entity called "Taiwan Province" is an "administrative region" of the "People's Republic of China". Please continue the discussion on talk page instead of hurriedly deleting the "Citation Needed" and "Better Citation Needed" tag."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1116215140 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) please stop edit warring over a tag citing need for sources. As explained in talk page, the sentence as it reeds is not neutral, as it makes the claim in Wikivoice (WP:WIKIVOICE)."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1116206784 by Chipmunkdavis (talk) This is no mention of statement in lead sentence in source ref #3 (See MOS:LEADSENTENCE on how lead sentences should read). Ref #2 is WP:PRIMARY, so a better source is required, as discussed on talk page. Please follow WP:BRD by participating in talk page instead of reverting."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1115830510 by 49.228.100.148 (talk) secondary sources are an absolute requirement of Reliable sources"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Primary sources */ The claim is pretty widely known"
 * 2)   "/* Primary sources */ Relevance?"
 * 3)   "/* Primary sources */ Reply"
 * 4)   "/* Primary sources */ Question"

Comments:

IntrepidContributor is edit warring in CN tags onto text noting China considers Taiwan a province. This was first inserted a few days ago, but the warring to insert the tag restarted today. The edit summaries include requests for others not to edit war and to follow BRD, despite this not happening on their end. The warning regarding 3RR was dismissed. CMD (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * would like the lead sentence of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China to state in WP:WIKIVOICE that an entity described as "Taiwan Province" is an "administrative division" of the "People's Republic of China", based on a WP:PRIMARY source (The Constitution of the People's Republic of China), and has thrice removed the Citation needed tag I placed page. Chipmunkdavis doesn't seem to understand what attribution is, and seems to think the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the Taiwanese government Are an acceptable source for this highly politically charged topic, when they are not. I am waiting for Chipmunkdavis to provide a secondary source, to support the text of the article as it is now, or edit it using proper attribution as I have suggested in the talk page . The burden for providing sources should be on the claimant, and Chipmunkdavis has yet to provide the required secondary sources, or the text from a secondary source he just fished up from Google Scholar. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That opening sentence is not based on that primary source, it is a quite basic summary of the topic at hand. What I'd like is a self-reversion, for fewer pointy tags, and less edit warring in changes. CMD (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I first noticed this page when it was called out as "very unique and interesting" by another editor, and I have repeatedly asked you that we base the description on secondary sources, not your own reading of a primary source. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I request that an administrator reads the talk page discussion as its starting to look like sealioning . Chipmunkdavis refuses to acknowledge the need for secondary sources to support a contentious claim by the PRC. This is a waste of time. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ... (IC sitewide for 3RR; CD from the article because on further review they did not make four reverts, but still should have stopped edit warring while the discussion was going on Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)) This does not come under any 3RRNO exception. cn tags are being restored, but the argument is over what is used to source the material, not whether the material needs to be sourced at all. There is discussion on the talk page (in which I would suggest someone learn to use the outdent template; it would help keep the discussion readable) that is generally civil and relevant. But the reverts have continued when they should have stopped. The article is up for deletion, but that does not mitigate a 3RR violation (and it looks as if it's heading for a close as no consensus or keep). Both editors may well have valid points, which makes it especially incumbent upon them to resolve that difference on the talk page, DRN, or through some process like 3O or an RfC instead of edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * After discussions with CMD, I have unblocked him. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Footwiks reported by User:Meganinja202 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_songs_and_anthems&diff=1114949296&oldid=1114944140

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_songs_and_anthems&diff=1115782262&oldid=1115782002
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_songs_and_anthems&diff=1116285231&oldid=1116249414
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_songs_and_anthems&diff=1116339588&oldid=1116338857
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_songs_and_anthems&diff=1116364880&oldid=1116361238

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_songs_and_anthems&diff=1116361238&oldid=1116351689

'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_songs_and_anthems#RfC:About_The_list_for_World_Cup_songs,_should_be_divided_or_not? [diff]

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

Comments:

User ignored any talks and tried to roll over the discussion, also tried to avoid resolution acting weirdly angry with me, he also harassed me TWICE on my talk page, threating me with consequences if i tried to keep the discussion, I tried to resolute with peaceful manner but he still acted in a forceful manner, also ignored my warnings when I had told him to resolve on the Talk page of the Article and forcefully put himself on the RFC when I clearly warned him that it was for other users opinions, also i prefer, if possible, that a MOD warn him instead of me, i don't want be harassed by him any further Meganinja202 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are the two posts on talk page
 * Threat
 * Second Post Meganinja202 (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I created discsusion at talk page at 13 October 2022‎. Meganinja202 was participated in 13 October and didn't participate in 14 October. So I misunderstood that he give up the discussion. So I edited the article.
 * And I left a message as belows two times at Meganinja202 talk page.
 * World Cup songs
 * Please Let's finish discussion and stop edit war.
 * AS you know, Wikipedia want contents with notability and reliable sources.
 * But most of unofficial songs and anthems are not notable and don't have reliable sources.
 * If Administrators and users who are not interested in World Cup music are participate in discussion, Maybe they will delete most unofficial songs and anthems.
 * I ask you politly If you want list all songs related to World Cup including unnotable songs, Please keep my version and let's improve article in current framework together.
 * Thank you
 * World Cup Songs
 * Do you want to delete unofficial songs and anthems who which have don't have notabiltilty and reliable source? If deleted, I'm OK. I don't care. Administrators and users who are not interested in World Cup Songs like List of UEFA European Championship songs and anthems will delete them. Just sleep on it.


 * Are these harassment? I politely asked and advised about wikipedia policy. Footwiks (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There were three reverts on October 13, but user has not kept it up in the days since. One of the linked diffs is actually Meganinja's revert of Footwiks. I don't see how the two linked diffs constitute threats ... perhaps they were misunderstood by a non-native speaker. Discussion has been started on the talk page and seems to be moving in a positive direction. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If possible i would like to seek a review of it, he is still insisting on not seek consensus and he forcefully got his way and views into the talk, he also got himself into RFC when I warned him for AVOID IT Meganinja202 (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User:174.75.9.56 reported by User:Wpscatter (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Protests */Edit"
 * 2)  "Stop editing"
 * 3)  "/* Protests */Adding the truth"
 * 4)  "Fixed a mistake in the article"
 * 5)  "True points via video evidence and crimes he was held accountable for"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Killing of James Scurlock."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 reported by User:Governor Sheng (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

and I are involved in a dispute at West Herzegovina Canton. The user I'm reporting removed the flag and the coat of arms from the infobox, explaning that these are no longer valid. They and I had a discussion, and the user being reported stopped contributing to the discussion after 4 October 2022. Two weeks later, after seeng no reply from them, and seeing that they were involved in other discussions with me and editing, I concluded that they had no objection to that what I wrote (the last discussion at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton).

Although I referred to reliable sources - a noted vexillologist Željko Heimer, User Santasa99 said it's just a blog and not a reliable source. Even though I also referred him to the positive laws of the canton in question, he disregarded the argument and instead of choosing to participate in further discussion, started to revert my edits with the same explanations.

Seeing no end to it, I tried for the last time to explain to him why I did what I did, and they openly said that they do not have the intention to participate in the discussion. I hope that the admins will resolve the dispute, I will say this:

According to WP:RSSELF: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Having this in mind, Željko Heimer is indeed an expert as described by this Wikipedia rule. Not only that but the positive laws of the canton point to the exact same. However, User Santasa99 is relying more on their original research and their own claims not supported by any sources, even though I explicitly asked him to present one. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thx for your instraction. Instead I'm gonna look for a third oppionion as technically there's no edit warring. Governor Sheng (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Natemup (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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: [diff]

Comments:


 * Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Wholesomist reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 19:24, 29 September 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversies and dangers */"
 * 2)  "Expansion of opinions from experts"
 * 3)  "/* Controversies and dangers */"
 * 4)  "/* Feasibility */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Quotes from social media */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring in material gathered from social media, such as medium.com blogs and facebook comment sections. Latest edit has pasted in three copies of the material at once. MrOllie (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked (see block log for laundry list of issues).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2A04:4A43:4D1F:E5D2:A1D9:52A7:2D39:C95B reported by User:Hardyplants (Result: Rangeblock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1116573935 by Meters (talk)"
 * 2)  "I’ve changed the text a little, but the source is 100% reliable as it’s published by a reliable psychologist. What do you think?"
 * 3)  "Not vandalism 😂"
 * 1)  "Not vandalism 😂"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:05, October 17, 2022

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Add diff for edit warring notice since not added with original posting Meters (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * IP has actually added the same material seven times in less than 12 hours:      . Four of these were after the IP was given an edit warring warning, and one was after this edit warring report was made. The IP's edits have been undone by ClueBot and five different named editors. Meters (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2a04:4a43:4d00::/40 range blocked 6 months for disruptive editing by user:Ad Orientem Meters (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:646:9A00:1A90:F1F0:BDC1:294A:6902 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  accusing me in "homophobic and Ukrainophobic vandalism"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Non, direct application of policies which the IP claims do not exist

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

Comments:

And of course playing the usual card "bad Russian editors should not threaten good Ukrainian editors with a block". The article is in a discretionary sanctions area, where we have plenty of blocked/banned users and their socks. This is a typical sock behavior in the topic area.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Canterbury Tail. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

User:70.183.60.2 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

NOte I also issues the 3rr warning, but it was the first edit to their page, and so I can't provide the diff. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

And still at it, now with violations of NPA. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

And now at (what) 6RR, they will not stop unless blocked. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. Edit warring and personal attacks. The page Great Barrington Declaration is covered by WP:ARBCOVID and is often targeted by new editors with a strong POV, so I've also applied three months of semiprotection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

User:76.88.52.174 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rv recent, unilateral/nonconsesual tags: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramune&type=revision&diff=1057916686&oldid=1057885305  +TIES: American company
 * 1)  "rv recent, unilateral/nonconsesual tags: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramune&type=revision&diff=1057916686&oldid=1057885305  +TIES: American company

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: from article by. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Plasamas reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1116887981 by RoxySaunders (talk) They were anti-Gay not anti-Trans"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1116808154 by Newimpartial (talk) Islam is surrounded by very conservative-minded people, and the "Progressive Muslim" movement is very small and only limited to the United States (a minority Islam country). This article only seems to have a bias and only apply negatives to Christianity, which is nowadays a much more progressive-minded western faith. Yet, this article portrays islam as an open minded faith."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1116740761 by Sideswipe9th (talk) Transphobia is not a race-based issue. For an opening image, we should display a more serious image other than some silly Neo-Nazi graffiti. This image is anything but accurate, as the Neo-Nazi movement have never been historically against Trans people. At best, I feel the best image to display would be a transphobic protest."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1116808154 by Newimpartial (talk) Islam is surrounded by very conservative-minded people, and the "Progressive Muslim" movement is very small and only limited to the United States (a minority Islam country). This article only seems to have a bias and only apply negatives to Christianity, which is nowadays a much more progressive-minded western faith. Yet, this article portrays islam as an open minded faith."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1116740761 by Sideswipe9th (talk) Transphobia is not a race-based issue. For an opening image, we should display a more serious image other than some silly Neo-Nazi graffiti. This image is anything but accurate, as the Neo-Nazi movement have never been historically against Trans people. At best, I feel the best image to display would be a transphobic protest."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1116740761 by Sideswipe9th (talk) Transphobia is not a race-based issue. For an opening image, we should display a more serious image other than some silly Neo-Nazi graffiti. This image is anything but accurate, as the Neo-Nazi movement have never been historically against Trans people. At best, I feel the best image to display would be a transphobic protest."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1116740761 by Sideswipe9th (talk) Transphobia is not a race-based issue. For an opening image, we should display a more serious image other than some silly Neo-Nazi graffiti. This image is anything but accurate, as the Neo-Nazi movement have never been historically against Trans people. At best, I feel the best image to display would be a transphobic protest."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on SHI International Corp."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has numerous posts trying to push their POV. Frequently changing logo’s, pictures, and pushing their POV again. Edit history is all over the place. Equine-man (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I have been a continuous editor for over a year now.Plasamas (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure if this is important but after I WP:DRAFTIFY an article and redirecting it to an article that mentions the topic, they randomly reverted the redirect here. <b style="background:#f5b836;color:#d12b1f;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Pizzaplayer219</b>Talk<sub title="C" style="margin-left:-22q;">Contribs 00:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * They don’t seem to like to communicate. <b style="background:#f5b836;color:#d12b1f;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Pizzaplayer219</b>Talk<sub title="C" style="margin-left:-22q;">Contribs 00:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed their talk page has a year’s worth of warnings. Equine-man (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:BitterGiant reported by User:Blether (Result: Reporting editor blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1955_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1111711566 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1955_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1116879023
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1955_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1116999266
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1955_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1117004469
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1955_United_Kingdom_general_election

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BitterGiant

Comments:

The article has an established status for over a month, with subsequent edits by other users. BitterGiant insists that his version become the status quo while discussion takes place on the Talk Page; he has made three reverts Blether (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * . Reporting another editor for edit-warring when you have made more reverts than that editor, and have used a sockpuppet to do so, is a bit silly, don't you think? JBW (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Muhammad boboev reported by User:Dylnuge (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "how could more than 200 people have died and 300 people wounded if only 400 people from Tajikistan and 450+from Kyrgyzstan participated in the conflict"
 * 2)  "200 killed and 300 injured😂😂😂😂 Only 400 people from Tajikistan and 400+ from Kyrgyzstan participated in this conflict"
 * 3)  "do not correct for the wrong one!!!!!"
 * 4)  "losses on both sides"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2022 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit Warring over Casualties */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring has been going on at this page for over a month, though I only stumbled on it a few days ago. The other side appears to be a anonymous user who is using a proxy or similar to constantly change their IP to evade any potential block. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 14:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that I've also reported the page at WP:RPP since the other participant appears to be an anon using a proxy. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 15:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * from article by Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Tibbschris reported by User:BlueNoise (Result: Indefinite partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I’ll continue to remove false information from this page"
 * 2)  "I have removed false information that continues to be posted by trolls"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Chris Tibbs:."
 * 2)   "/* October 2022 */ fix article wikilink"

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

Comments:

Editor is continually removing content they have deemed "false", despite it being sourced. Their reverts go back further than what is linked, as indicated by the page's edit history, and at one point they appeared to sign out in order to once again remove the sourced content. BlueNoise ( Scotty, beam me up! ) 20:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * User has not crossed 3RR today. I have warned them about conflict of interest and how it is a bad idea for an individual to edit their own article, which appears to be the case here. I've also advised their account could be blocked because of the name collision, i.e., to prevent impersonation. Waiting to see their next action. —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What I see is a contentious statement sourced solely to a primary document, and negative conjecture within that statement that isn't sourced at all. Is there any reason that WP:BLPREMOVE doesn't apply?-- Ponyo bons mots 20:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ponyo here. While I certainly have personal qualms based on the primary document, I would think it best to wait for comment in reliable secondary sources before inclusion.  Then again, I am frequently wrong!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * from the Chris Tibbs article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that's unfortunate as the BLP exemption definitely applies in this case. I've removed the poorly-sourced contentious content.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two issues at play here: there is the conduct issue by the user - and leading with calling other editors "trolls" is very bad form - and there is the content issue. This is a classic case where the conduct overshadowed the content. (It almost calls into question whether the account should be blocked outright pending VRT verification of identity.)Once I had a chance to dig into it, I agree that they were good edits. There's no coverage of the underlying issue in any secondary sources, and I now share your hesitance to include the sourced portion of the information - especially since, from skimming the report, it sounds like the conclusion is that what the report covered was a non-issue with no consequences to the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just symptahize with the editor if they are indeed the subject. A brand new editor creates an account solely to dump negative content in the article, then the (likely) article subject is repeatedly reverted and blocked when they try to remove it. I don't think any of the many editors restoring the content even reviewed what they were adding back in. I hope it serves as a reminder for RC patrollers to review the content and its corresponding sources if they will be restoring contested info to BLPs.--  Ponyo bons mots 20:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake on my part. A lot of these cases you will find the editor is removing the content because they either disagree with it, or it upsets them in some way. I'll take this a learning lesson to always review the content before jumping in on assumptions. BlueNoise  ( Désorienté? Deja vu? ) 22:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Patch455 reported by User:Andro611 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Link Diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't used the talk page but I have linked a Britannica article to the user supporting my claim in case it was an honest mistake on his part. He chose to ignore it and continue disrupting. I felt it to be a waste of space to start a new discussion on the talk page solely for this, as I assumed the user would stop after his 3rd edit was reverted. 

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

Comments: I am all for consensus building and compromise on the talk page but, this user has a history of edit warring and ignoring other wikipedia editors. I don't mean this a personal attack, but why clutter the talk page with a meaningless discussion whose sum will add nothing to the quality of the article? I have linked a reliable source to point out to the editor that he is not correct and yet he still insists on his 'I'm right you're wrong' mindset. Is that not tantamount to vandalism? I have politely warned said editor and pleaded him to change his ways but he evidently refused to. Please, can be something done so that such disruptive editing is stopped on that particular page? Best regards Andro611 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This needs to be sorted out in talk, and possibly in talk for the articles of Port of Hong Kong or Hong Kong. —C.Fred (talk) 04:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Parispv reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: blocked 72h)
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:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * I was going to leave this at a p-block in acknowledgment of them having at least started discussion on talk, but then I saw they have a quite recent edit-warring block at Lea Michele. Blocked sitewide 3 days. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

User:UsagiDreams reported by User:Ermenrich (Result: Partial block)
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:

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

Comments:

Apart from their edit warring, this user's comments and edit summaries are spiced with personal attacks and accusations of "bigotry" and "prejudice". –Austronesier (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I might add to what Austronesier said that this editor appeared out of nowhere to continue edit warring after another editor hit 3rr, which seems more than a little suspicious.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This account dates back to 2009, so I don't see anything obvious that suggest impropriety. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * from Germanic languages. I just hit the surface issue of this account's actions. I'll look a little deeper at the page's history in a minute. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Reyrefran reported by User:Sciencefish (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1117750527 by Hariboneagle927 (talk) - There are some articles found that includes positions in similar organizations in their infoboxes"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1117742066 by Chlod (talk)  Agiain, Atty. Leni Robredo is apublic figure and her Angat Buhay position is what makes her relevant. This is a fact."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1117741046 by Chlod (talk)"
 * 4)  "Leni Robredo remains a public figure and her Angat Buhay position is what makes her still relevant as a public figure."
 * 5)  "Angat Buhay is what makes former VP Leni Robredo relevant to this day"

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

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

Comments:

Not engaging on Leni Robredo talk page. Sciencefish (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:Johnvr4 (Result: No violation; withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1)


 * 1)

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

Comments: Per WP:3RR: A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. With that in mind, the first three diffs provided count as a single revert, meaning that Drmies made 2 reverts on the article in the last 24 hours. You also apparently made 2 reverts while logged out, so are you proposing that making 2 reverts on this article is cause for a block? - Aoidh (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I was just about to make the same comment. Diffs 1, 2, and 3 appear to be consecutive edits with no intervening edits per the article history, and so according to policy only count as a single revert. Therefore there has only been two reverts made by Drmies. I would suggest that the filer, Johnvr4, withdraws this request. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Diffs 1,2,3,4 each deleted similar material--all of which I submitted. There was also a diff 5: in the page history which I did not include in this report. Diffs 1,2,3 each reverted content the content of my first revert and changes, Diff 4, reverted my second revert and changes. Diff 5 restored one paragraph I submitted today. Given the editors stated reasoning that the content is "not exciting," I didn't count my revert under 3rr as I stated in my edit summary. Given the editors reasoning as stated in his revert edit summary "Rv, as before," I can only assume they do not think the changes or citations I submitted are exciting either and given that fact, I will not count my next revert for 3rr either. Johnvr4 (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Diffs 1-3 count as a single revert, because there was no intervening edits by another editor. This is also true for diffs 4 and the just provided 5, though you could also classify semi-self-revert which also do not count per 3RRNO#1. Assuming you are the IP editor, then you have also made two reverts based on the intervening edits rule. One more revert would put you up to the 3RR limit, but would be unadvisable given that this is now at the edit warring noticeboard and could be interpreted as engaging in an edit war. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect, I believe you are miscounting reverts. Quoting WP:3RR, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert... Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. (emphasis is mine)
 * Also note that rollbacks should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes without an appropriate edit summary. None of these reverts are legitimate without one. Johnvr4 (talk) 05:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in fact in error. I misinterpreted a part 3RR and therefore my counting of a consecutive series of reverts. Therefore, as you correctly advised above, I withdraw my report. Johnvr4 (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No violation and withdrawn.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But we were able to establish how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, so it wasn't a complete waste of time. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Toomanyyearskodakblack reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Not an accident, top headline says martyred. It's the most reliable source. His own friend and producer of his TV show has said the same."
 * 2)  "all major news channels are reporting as shaheed, meaning martyred."
 * 3)  "top headline says martyred"
 * 4)  "he has been martyred"
 * 5)  "added shaheed"
 * 6)  "added death date"
 * 1)  "he has been martyred"
 * 2)  "added shaheed"
 * 3)  "added death date"
 * 1)  "added shaheed"
 * 2)  "added death date"
 * 1)  "added death date"
 * 1)  "added death date"
 * 1)  "added death date"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Arshad Sharif."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Arshad Sharif."
 * 3)   "+ Section header"
 * 4)   "/* Edit warring */ Youtube is not a reliable source for a BLP"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Mootje0475 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * (for Greater Cairo)
 * (for Cairo, but posted on user talk page as they were adding non-English names elsewhere too)

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

Comments:

Note that at Greater Cairo, my initial revert of their edits came just over a month after they had done them, but the edits were clearly dubious and unsupported, even nonsensical, and they haven't provided any support for their claim since then, even after a direct question on the talk page. Their behavior at Cairo, along with their nonsensical edit summaries, makes it more obvious that they don't understand the problem or don't seem willing to follow policy. R Prazeres (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Qzd reported by User:Thedefender35 (Result: 129.2.181.221 blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by 129.2.181.221 (talk) to last revision by Qzd: not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS)"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by 129.2.181.221 (talk) to last version by Qzd"
 * 3)  "Reverted edits by 129.2.181.221 (talk) to last revision by Drmies: not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * This is a misguided report. I've blocked the IP who everyone is reverting, including the filer, for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:4006:B000:18B9:7EBF:FB49:7505 reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Range blocked)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Christine McVie."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Simon Phillips (drummer)."

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

Comments:

Also on multiple other pages in the same vein. See ALL contributions from this users /64 IPv6 range:. As an IPv6 user, all edits on the /64 are the same person. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Another on at Christine McVie - . See also this one earlier: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And see also recent edit warring at Simon Collins for more of the behaviour. I will stop there but plenty of other examples in edit history. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * – Special:Contributions/2600:1700:4006:B000:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked one year by User:Graham87. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:FierakuiVërtet reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Not for people who can understand English."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1118163173 by Khirurg (talk)nope, this is not. There is a still discussion going on. You may want to have a look at it."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1118084480 by Alexikoua (talk)Ktistakis felt the need to specified Muslim Chams. Meaning he made a distinction. You cannot ignore this and take two sources to facilitate you own narrative. Besides, the discussion is ongoing"
 * 4)  "What are you even doing? This source does not have anything to do with the numbers. You can't use it to justify the ridiculous "44" figure. Besides, this article is about what they *are*, not about what the people *feel* to be. Therefore, the "44" figure should also go."
 * 5)  "The discussion is ongoing."
 * 1)  "The discussion is ongoing."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 44 Chams living in Thesprotia */"
 * 2)  "You are ridiculous...you are being pathetic"

Comments:

The two consecutive edits are reverts of this edit. The most recent revert is a partial rv of this edit of mine, where I changed the POV term "suffered" to "underwent". This user also has 4 reverts within 24 hours at Enver Hoxha: (rv of this ),,  (rv of this ),. Khirurg (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . While the reported editor did not clearly violate 3RR per se IMO, both on the reported article and Enver Hoxha they preferred to revert and use edit summaries for discussion, edit summaries in which they took a confrontational and contentious tone (as shown above). On the reported article they more than once referred editors being reverted to the talk page, to a discussion in which they were not participating much, and to the degree they were their participation could be best characterized as more hostile than helpful. So they are blocked for edit warring in general rather than 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:208.83.112.200 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1118202074 by MPFitz1968 (talk) Fuck off"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1118197505 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1118196947 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1118182914 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1117771170 by Czello (talk) I already saw the discussion page and one comment said it’s okay to change the title as long as it says “Timmy Turner and his fairy family”"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism using multiple IPs on List of The Fairly OddParents characters."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of The Fairly OddParents characters."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Resumed edit warring after page protect expired. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment You also continued to revert past the 3 revert limit yourself. Please refrain from continuing edit wars (even those started by other users) before discussion with the person(s) involved and if needed, an administrator.
 * PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have made 3 edits to that page since June 22. I have not gone past the 3RR limit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

See previous report using other IP Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted that IP just now, only to be reverted by them (and attached that revert to the report). Will also note their edit summary, that is definitely a personal attack. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I would like to bring forward Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents PerryPerryD  Talk To Me 18:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * – 6 months by User:Canterbury Tail per a complaint at WP:ANI. Canterbury also semiprotected the page in dispute for one year. This IP's behavior matches that of a previous IP who was blocked here last June due to a dispute on the same article. Both IPs dish out lots of abuse in their edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Khamarhaqam reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
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:

Note also previous identical edits by IP. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Parispv reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:

Parispv just came off of a block from this very edit war that they're continuing. Here is the relevant report. They are also involved in a separate edit war on. KyleJoan talk 21:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Iamthechacha reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Socks blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:

Pretty straight-forward. Semi protection lapsed, and a brand new SPA editor started up the same edit warring. They don't seem to be paying much attention to what they're reverting, since my edits which basically support their version have been reverted as well as edits which oppose their version. Resumption of semi-protection has been requested. Editor should probably be indeffed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, discussion of the issue was already underway at Talk:Francoist Spain beginning several weeks ago. Neither of the SPAs have contributed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have extended the SP for a month but sadly messed up the edit summary. Got called away in the middle so had no chance yet to look at blocking Agathoclea (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've blocked and tagged Iamthechcha and several other socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

User:66.249.122.34 reported by User:Throast (Result: Blocked for a year as a suspected sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Persistent addition of favorable original research to the lead section and, as of late, removal of cited unfavorable info from the lead section. Likely a continuation of behavior by sockpuppeteer VideoGamer123456 (see SPI) considering similar edit summaries and nature of edits (diff, diff, diff for comparison). Though their edits span several days, I think persistent disruptive behavior is clearly demonstrated. The IP is completely unresponsive. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 19:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * per the sockpuppetry suspicions expressed both here and at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Crossroads (Result: Fully protected one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1118416387 by Crossroads (talk)I see no such "compromise version" on Talk, but it certainly isn't what you are reverting to. If you want to revert again and go to AE, be my guest."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1118240635 by Crossroads (talk)Per 6:3 consensus for inclusion on Talk. If anyone disagrees with my math or the timing if this, please take it up somewhere appropriate, but additional reversions would seem to me to be STONEWALLING in this context."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1118165292 by Springee (talk)I see 4:2 in favor of inclusion; that smells like a consensus to include."
 * 4)  "Restored revision 1117872052 by Sectionworker (talk): Generally supported on Talk"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Ongoing discussion: (permalink: )

Comments:

Per WP:3RR, Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. The user's claim that the text is supported on Talk 6 to 3 is false; there are not that many supporters, and there were 4 editors against the material they are forcing in via reverts (just now a 5th joined, which they promptly tried to intimidate despite there being 66 page watchers who visited recent edits). The compromise version they are claiming does not exist is here, very clear on the page. Despite discussion and possible compromise being ongoing, they are bypassing it by forcing in a particular version. This disruption has to be addressed. Crossroads -talk- 23:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Crossroads I would be very wary about claiming intimidation, when you have threatened to take Newimpartial to AE in, and made a similar but more aggressive query about how I came to the discussion at the six minutes after I had contributed to the discussion. When read together, it almost seems as though you're trying to discourage editors from contributing to that article and talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did end up taking them to the noticeboard, did I not? Would have hoped they would have forgone the 4th revert after being warned, but oh well. As for this, how you showed up there as a voice to support this text despite having never said anything on that page previously is suspicious. I never said anything of the sort to other participants not agreeing with me. Crossroads -talk- 23:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, to the other participants you have actually been worse. In this section, you are to both new and student editors, for which there are direct examples in the talk archives of the Pregnancy article and other articles. In this section, your first reply to  immediately casts them as being here for, immediately putting them on the defensive. In this section, you claim that  is an  because of his views on the content dispute, while also . And in this section you state that you think it best if  despite multiple editors raising multiple issues in good faith that you disagree with.
 * When reading all of this together, I will again state that it looks as though you are trying to discourage editors from contributing to that article and talk page. Those that you cannot disparage away, you cast as activists who are there to "right great wrongs". Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is whataboutism and all taken out of context or not an accurate description. Anyone is welcome to read the diffs themselves if they want and see the actual tone or what preceded it. For "ultra-libertarian", if I had a do-over I would have chosen another word, but in-context I was clearly speaking about attitude toward writing from someone saying non sequiturs like Let's please not regulate. Anyone can edit this article. about people removing "women" from the text and accusing critics of their position of aligning with conservatives. Comments about leaving it be were after long, circular discussion about which other users expressed severe frustration - certainly not any sort of command. Crossroads -talk- 00:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG isn't whataboutism, as you really ought to know, having previously tried to invoke it yourself. Newimpartial (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Newimpartial - this shows 2 reverts per 24 hours, twice. The Talk page shows a 6:3 consensus to include the paragraph, at the time of my last revert. Crossroads appears to be STONEWALLING, as far as I can tell. Also note that Crossroads initially began to revert well before joining the discussion on Talk - that looks like some form of disruption in itself. [User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Newimpartial's behavior is an issue. This edit warring is an example of someone who pushes their preferred version of content rather than accepts when consensus is still evolving or doesn't support what they are certain is the "right" content for an article.  I warned them about such behavior a few months back as well as just yesterday .  Other editors have also raised edit warring concerns .  They also have a 2019 block for edit warring.  Springee (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Springee, you have been following my edits in violation of WP:WIKISTALKING. Please don't do that, and stop your POV-based, unsubstantiated attacks. Pointing to evidence that you have said something in the past is no replacement for diffs to lend some support for your claims, which at the moment consist of unsubstantiated WP:ASPERSIONS and things you believe to be true. Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It was 5 to 4 at best, as I explained, which promptly became 5 to 5 after you reverted anyway. Weirdly you acknowledged it was 5 on your side less than a day ago, but this mysteriously transformed into 6 today. It was always 5. Your last diff isn't even me, but I also have been part of the talk page discussion for the entire time and expressed the same view on 29 September. Also, in this discussion in service of very similar material on another page, you instead ignored the majority against the material and played the 'stable version' card. Funny how that works. Crossroads -talk- 23:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Says the editor who has previously claimed to have consensus when one other editor agreed with him, in spite of multiple opposes. In this instance, I suspect we are both counting Firefangledfeathers' vote: I was counting it as in favor (thus six to three at the time I reverted) because it supports a mention in the lead - which you oppose. You are coubtint it as against (thus five to four at the time I reverted) because they suggested one sentence rather than two.
 * As far as your last link is concerned, this is a wonderful example of you imagining a majority against the material which the discussion you actually link to doesn't show at all. Funny how that works. Newimpartial (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The last link mentions a removal based on consensus of 4 editors. Anyway, Firefangledfeathers was specifically against the material you were reverting: Two lead sentences seems a bit much; instead they suggested a compromise version that you claimed didn't exist in the edits reported here. Surprisingly, you are now attacking editors who disagree with you as knights of POV even with an open report at this noticeboard. Crossroads -talk- 04:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Colin The disputed sentence was
 * Added to the lead first paragraph by (aka Gandydancer) a very longtime contributor to the article who has done a lot of work on various aspects recently. They included this brief mention in the lead to summarise the expanded section in the body.
 * Noted on talk by Colin, who approves of the addition.
 * Replied on talk by Sectionworker, who explains their addition to the lead.
 * Removed by Crossroads with comment WP:UNDUE weight in the first paragraph. We're not adding any other specific subgroup shoutouts nor is every anatomy article going to start listing exceptions in the first paragraph
 * Added later in the lead by Sectionworker in response to Crossroads edit summary comment about "first paragraph".
 * Removed by Springee.
 * At this point a talk page discussion is begun by Sectionworker. Neither Crossroads nor Springee have at this point engaged on talk on this sentence or their reverts.
 * Added by Newimpartial
 * Removed by Springee
 * Added by Newimpartial
 * Removed by Crossroads
 * Added by Newimpartial
 * Removed by Crossroads
 * Added by Newimpartial
 * At this point edit warring is reported by Crossroads
 * Removed by Masterhatch who subsequently gave their opinion on talk

It is odd that Crossroads reported Newimpartial for edit warring, since Crossroads is also edit warring. Crossroads as noted above has taken a very strong and hostile line against transgender issues on the article. Their contributions to the article have been solely to remove transgender from it. If you notice the addition of a source among that contribution history, it isn't supplying one to aid WP:V. It is because they reverted an editor, citing WP:STICKTOSOURCE in the edit summary but found in fact that the sentence was unsourced. So then went and added a couple of sources that use the word "woman" just so that their revert was retrospectively justifiable in their mind. The lead sentence of Pregnancy no more needs a source than "The sky is blue", except if you want to argue, as Crossroads does, that it must contain the word "woman". Crossroads is not article building at pregnancy. They are watchlisting the page to revert "trolls and crusaders", as they call them, or "people who disagree with Crossroads" as others might phrase it.

The disputed sentence was neither factually incorrect nor breaking any BLP rules. In other words, whether it is in or out of the lead is not at all terribly urgent. Matters of WP:DUE are solvable slowly. Furthermore, all editors are fully aware that this matter is a current culture war and there are DS on the matter. So why especially should any editor think it more important that they immediately revert their version rather than agreeing on the talk page?

I think Masterhatch should be reminded that edit warring is where editors repeatedly override each other without engaging in and seeking consensus on the talk page. Joining in with an edit war is not acceptable, even if you only do it once. They should have engaged on talk (which they did after the revert) and sought consensus with other editors. User:Sectionworker did nothing wrong. They restored the material at the end of the lead after being told it wasn't DUE in the "first paragraph". User:Springee is also guilty of edit warring. I don't care about 3RR thresholds, they are still edit warring, and should be warned that it is not acceptable. They edit warred before subsequently, 16 hours later, joining in on the talk page discussion opened by Sectionworker. That's just quite obviously wrong. Both Newimpartial and Crossroads merit sanctions for edit warring and I don't care about 24h windows, they are both at it. And Crossroads doubly so for being the one coming at AN/AE to report the other guy. That demonstrates a rather strong lack of self awareness. Combined with their contribution history (which is not isolated to the pregnancy article), I think they are skirting close to a topic ban.

If any editor I've criticised thinks that's unfair, please re-read the second paragraph above. Why do you think a matter of WP:DUE required you to enforce your version with a revert? There's no planet where edit warring and joining in with an edit war is an acceptable strategy for solving the least important aspect of content writing. None of you warriors were engaged in article building. We have a section on transgender in pregnancy in the article. That much is not at all in dispute. Summarising that in the lead is not at all a radial idea or against any guideline or policy. All that remains is that you personally think it unimportant/important for the lead. So we are left with editors, who haven't contributed material, imposing their views on a culture war topic by direction action through reverts. All four of you, Masterhatch, Springee, Crossroads and Newimpartial, are in the wrong here. -- Colin°Talk 10:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you are making excuses or trying to down play Newimpartial's clear pattern of problematic editing, including clear edit warring because you ultimately agree with their pov on the issue. That's fine but it doesn't excuse Newimpartial's edit warring. Springee (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't the correct dramaboard forum to discuss a pattern of problematic editing apart from revert-warring, as you really ought to know. This looks like your pattern of piling onto a mostly unrelated filing because you would like to remove me as an "opponent" (from your frequent tone, seemingly an annoying one). Newimpartial (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the correct place to point out your edit warring and that it's not an accidental or incidental behavior, rather a edit warring based on a certainty that since you are "right" it's OK to ignore rules like BRD, NOCON and of course, using edit warring to push your preferred version back into an article. Springee (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? I'm never "right". I'm just seriously fed up with STONEWALLING POV obstructionism and relared WIKILAWYERING, which is what all of your and Crossroads' non-3RR diffs (when they address my edits) actually illustrate. Newimpartial (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Springee, I'm puzzled that you accuse me of favouring Newimpartial, when I said both you and Crossroads warrant sanctions. Both. I look further up and it is you who only sees problems with one editor and ignore the other's faults, perhaps that is, as you put it, "because you ultimately agree with their pov on the issue". Really, the total lack of self-awareness among the edit warriors is alarming. You are all experienced editors, and yet you are fighting and bullying. The only actual content builder has remarked that they are fed up with the article (though they put it more bluntly than that). Shame on you all.
 * User:Bbb23, do you realise your full protection has discouraged an editor who has throughout been steadily improving the content, and in the last few days has had to deal with random editors fighting over the lead content that they were working on. It isn't just the trans sentence. It seems everyone who has now turned up to give their opinion on the dispute thinks they are a pregnancy guru who can just hack away at the lead.
 * No we don't need to build articles by RFC just because one or two editors can't contain themselves. The problem is those editors and all that an RFC would do would be to encourage more culture warriors to engage (which essentially is what's happened as a result of this notice). The pregnancy article needs editors who read the sources and build body content and who then make careful edits to the lead. It needs random opinionated know-nothings commenting on a lead sentence like a hole in the head. -- Colin°Talk 16:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've fully protected the article for one week. That will give editors some time to work out a consensus on whether the transgender material should be in the lead. Based on the bickering here and on the Talk page, perhaps an RfC would be a better approach. Certainly the sniping isn't helping.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Julienor94 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Sock indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I add the "controversy" paragraph because there is strictly no archaeological evidence or any ancient text that mentions a Celtic Teutates. However I do not erase the part without serious reference. Is the consensus closed?"
 * 2)  "Yes, that's your interpretation, why did you delete the paragraph when I didn't touch what you marked?"
 * 3)  "nothing is erased but added the controversial paragraph"
 * 4)  "As seen in the talk Teutates is a Ligurian god. The only text that highlights this god is the historical text of Lucan."
 * 5)  "I put your passage like that the readers will make their own opinion. I think that's the best solution"
 * 6)  "/* French hypothesis on the Celts */ Nothing better than the entire passage"
 * 7)  "I'm curious to read the text. Because the reference shows nothing and the author is only Bernhard Maier. Where is the text ? I don't erase anything and leave you in your imaginary references."
 * 8)  "/* French hypothesis on the Celts */ highlighting of the word "ligurian""
 * 9)  "in fact you simply did not understand what is written. I'll explain. Lucain cites the peoples living in the "north", he speaks of the Celts, then of the Germans living beyond the Alps. Then he speaks of the Ligurians, the first people because they are the Barbarians closest to the Romans, they live in northern Italy inside the Alpine arc. When he speaks of the Ligurians, he tells of their beliefs in particular the Teutates."
 * 1)  "I'm curious to read the text. Because the reference shows nothing and the author is only Bernhard Maier. Where is the text ? I don't erase anything and leave you in your imaginary references."
 * 2)  "/* French hypothesis on the Celts */ highlighting of the word "ligurian""
 * 3)  "in fact you simply did not understand what is written. I'll explain. Lucain cites the peoples living in the "north", he speaks of the Celts, then of the Germans living beyond the Alps. Then he speaks of the Ligurians, the first people because they are the Barbarians closest to the Romans, they live in northern Italy inside the Alpine arc. When he speaks of the Ligurians, he tells of their beliefs in particular the Teutates."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Teutates is ligurian god */ Seems to be original research"
 * 2)   "/* Teutates is ligurian god */ either you have a source or you don't"
 * 3)   "inset"
 * 4)   "/* Teutates is ligurian god */ further"

Comments:

Determined to add own original research that completely changes the article subject. Talk page discussion used to argue same personal analysis of primary source. Has previously been blocked a few weeks ago for same behaviour on another article. Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

User:185.123.53.37 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1118736211 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1118735176 by M.Bitton (talk) Stop misrepresenting sources"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1118729567 by M.Bitton (talk) Failed verification"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1053328737 by 2001:8003:A407:C500:CD44:EAC7:F113:6C9A (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1053328737 by 2001:8003:A407:C500:CD44:EAC7:F113:6C9A (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1053328737 by 2001:8003:A407:C500:CD44:EAC7:F113:6C9A (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Invasion of Algiers (1775)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * This edit summary (while blanking the 3RR warning) shows their awareness to the 3RR. M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

User:85.84.112.132 reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Impartial christian. Sectarians."
 * 2)  "Impartial christian. Sectarians."
 * 3)  "Impartial christian."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1118707134 by Egsan Bacon (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1118707710 by 85.84.112.132 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1118707134 by Egsan Bacon (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1118707710 by 85.84.112.132 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1118707710 by 85.84.112.132 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Roman Empire."
 * 2)   "Notice: Unnecessarily changing date formats on Roman Empire."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP is changing BC/AD to BCE/CE contrary to MOS:ERA, been reverted by three editors referencing MOS:ERA and warned by them, but has not engaged on the article talk page or responded on their own talk page apart from blanking it three times. NebY (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

User:97.112.217.211 reported by wolf (Result: Blocked from article space)
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: link

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

Comments: Straight 4RR vio. User refuses to engage on either the article talk page or their user talk page. User is now enagaging in the same behaviour on a second article. - w o lf  20:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Edit warring takes two people 97.112.217.211 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave valid reasons for my edits in both cases. They were reverted despite my edits being valid and improving the quality of the pages. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * from article space. IP is free to work toward consensus for the changes on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * TY — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:8000:3E02:F628:AC98:A7A7:95B7:8C0B reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "As I said, the image is not "mine", it does not belong to me nor did I publish it (unlike the other map). If the question is with regards to labels, then here is the appropriate replacement of the same map but labelled"
 * 2)  "They most certainly are not the same image and I own neither, it is in fact the other user who keeps reverting back to their own image which they published on Commons back in 2021"
 * 3)  "Already done, meanwhile it's probably best to put personal opinions and emotions aside and stick to the reliable long-standing map before the vandalism of the SPA"
 * 4)  "And here's my fourth. If it matters so much, go ahead and open an edit warring report, just bear in mind that edit warring isn't a one way street and it's your third too"
 * 5)  "Now you're edit warring, if you want to keep the new "map", then I suggest you go to the talk page and seek consensus for it. But for now, back to the long-standing version"
 * 6)  "Restoring the long standing map that was replaced by a disruptive SPA who was warned and blocked for edit warring"
 * 7)  "distruptive editing"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They reverted someone's good edit and accused them of "disruptive editing" and being a SPA. When asked to take it to the talk page and name the so-called SPA, they refused and kept edit warring while being fully aware of the 3R rule that they intentionally broke (see the edit summary of their last revert). M.Bitton (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because you are the author of the file and you may agree with it it, doesn't make it a "good edit". 2603:8000:3E02:F628:AC98:A7A7:95B7:8C0B (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. Anyway, you are now at your 6th revert. M.Bitton (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 7 reverts and counting. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind me asking. Could you please look at this case? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If it continues after the block or obvious block evasion pops up, let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I managed to screw up the ping the first time round. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * M.Bitton, it actually went through. No worries though. Glad to help.<span id="ScottishFinnishRadish:1667090374774:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Edit_warring" class="FTTCmt"> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

User edits in portal namespace:

'''Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Sad for him, but too local and this is not a tabloid.
 * 2)  Yes, it’s too local. Use 2022 in the United States, this is why this article exists. Thanks
 * 3)  Nancy has not been attacked, so this remains too local. Use 2022 in the United States.
 * 4)  Stop
 * 5)  Nancy is safe. This is not relevant for an international Portal. Learn to use 2022 in the United States.

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:


 * I am an uninvolved party in the incident, but have been involved in previous issues on Portal:Current Events involving Alsoriano97.
 * Alsoriano97 has reverted the same entry five time over a nine hour period. Each time the entry was posted by a different editor (with one editor posting twice non-consecutively) and worded differently.
 * Alsoriano97 has a history of edit warring, civility issues and tendentious editing on Portal:Current Events going back many years.
 * An AN/I filing was previously opened against Alsoriano97, where Alsoriano97 was warned to not further engage in the above issues.
 *  A search by an administrator returned 66 potential violations of 3RR over a 3 year period.
 * Alsoriano97 has been previously blocked for 3RR violations on Portal:Current Events.
 * The majority of Alsoriano97’s removals relate to news on Anglophone countries, with a specific emphasis on the USA. These removals frequently relate to news that, while occurring in the US, are widely reported globally in many RS's.
 * Alsoriano97 frequently removes or makes uncivil comments for entries which do not include the country of where the event occurred.

Previous Discussions & Warnings:

Recent
 * 1) Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105
 * 2) Current_events_noticeboard

Significant
 * 1) Portal_talk:Current_events/Archive_12
 * 2) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 3) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 4) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 5) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 6) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_2
 * 7) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 8) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 9) Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441

Routine


 * 1) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_2
 * 2) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 3) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 4) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 5) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 6) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 7) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 8) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 9) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1
 * 10) User_talk:Alsoriano97/Archive_1

Carter00000 (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Alsoriano97 comment I honestly didn't keep in mind that I had fallen into the 3RR, I thought I did fewer edits. My apologies. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

On civility and tendentious editing, noting that after this AN3 filing:

(A) Alsoriano97 has responded to my notification to this AN3 filing with the following response.
 * Have nothing better to do?

(B) Alsoriano97 has responded to discussion on the matter on his talk page with the following response.
 * You are mixing a lot of things up. Who would think of mixing the assault on someone who is not even political, relevant, known or important outside the United States with events in a European country that is being invaded or in a civil war in an African or Asian country? It's nonsense. Fortunately, the world is much bigger than the United States, and its third authority is still just as relevant as the third authority of any other country: little outside their country, very little. But that has happened to her husband, not even to her! If it had happened in another country, what would you think? I'm thinking exactly the same, I'm not so clear with you and so many other editors. And no, Nancy is not part of the US government.

(C) Alsoriano97 has responded to discussion on the matter on an article talk page with the following response.
 * Oh well, just another case of American-bias. Okay, let's get to it.


 * Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

User:അദ്വൈതൻ reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked, 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Word meaning of Trinity and Triune are no way related to the accompanying words provided in the page thus it constitute vandalism."
 * 2)  "Vandalising page by including words no way related (not synonymous) to the accompanying words."
 * 3)  "Vandalising of page by including words no way related (not synonymous) to the accompanying words."
 * 4)  "Word replaced Triune and Trinity are not related to, that is they aren't synonymous other accompanying words in same the sentence and is an act of vandalism."
 * 5)  "Words not related to Triple Deity removed"
 * 6)  "Unrelated words removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Someone trying to talk to them on there page to no avail Moxy - 02:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that this is the user's second block for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Wojak6 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indeffed as a sockmaster)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

User is edit warring across several articles right now. They are yet to use the edit summary function, let alone a talk page. They have already been warned for edit warring and has been here for two years, so they should very well be aware of this kind of stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeffed as a sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Adres04 reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1119059080 by Braganza (talk) No feelings in editing articles, just as it is"
 * 2)  "/* top */Improving"
 * 3)  "/* top */Improving the article"
 * 4)  "/* top */Improving the article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user violated WP:3RR and their edits were reverted by three editors in the past 24 hrs. The user keeps reinstating a very poorly-done version from the Serbian Wikipedia. Vacant0 (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24h for disruptive editing by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Oldgreg100 reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added political positions on taxes, economy, covid-19"
 * 2)  "I had already stated the specifics. His “far right” designation is already mentioned in his political positions section. That and his stance on Biden-Trump elections aren’t more defining if Bolduc, as his 30+ year military career. This is in consistence with other military war veteran pages.  Let’s keep it neutral."
 * 3)  "As pointed out by many on the talk page the opposition’s campaign staffers are possibly involved in smearing Bolduc’s page. Let’s keep Wikipedia neutral"
 * 4)  "A 20+ year military combat veteran’s brief service overview is more relevant and defining than hearsay interpretation of his political positions in past couple of years. Including his “views on election” in his general info section is neither consistent with other military vet’s bios nor is it consistent with other politicians who held similar views on the election."
 * 5)
 * 1)  "As pointed out by many on the talk page the opposition’s campaign staffers are possibly involved in smearing Bolduc’s page. Let’s keep Wikipedia neutral"
 * 2)  "A 20+ year military combat veteran’s brief service overview is more relevant and defining than hearsay interpretation of his political positions in past couple of years. Including his “views on election” in his general info section is neither consistent with other military vet’s bios nor is it consistent with other politicians who held similar views on the election."
 * 3)
 * 1)  "A 20+ year military combat veteran’s brief service overview is more relevant and defining than hearsay interpretation of his political positions in past couple of years. Including his “views on election” in his general info section is neither consistent with other military vet’s bios nor is it consistent with other politicians who held similar views on the election."
 * 2)
 * 1)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view."
 * 2)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 3)   "/* October 2022 */ Reply"
 * 4)   "/* October 2022 */ Reply"
 * 5)   "/* October 2022 */ Reply"
 * 6)   "/* October 2022 */ Reply"
 * 7)   "/* October 2022 */ Reply"
 * 8)   "/* October 2022 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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%);">🚐 17:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging @Ser! @Neutrality 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%);">🚐 17:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I directed the user to the talk page instead of edit warring, and his next move was to revert not just this but an intermediate edit which added further detail. Also worth noting as I was typing this and even after my warning about the 3RR he has reverted again. Feels somewhere between WP:IDONTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTHERE. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Masem reported by User:Daniel.Cardenas (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Stadia&type=revision&diff=1118929571&oldid=1118929444&diffmode=source
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Stadia&type=revision&diff=1118928187&oldid=1118927673&diffmode=source
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Stadia&type=revision&diff=1118927486&oldid=1118926102&diffmode=source
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Stadia&type=revision&diff=1118920413&oldid=1118918348&diffmode=source

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: in update comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Stadia&type=revision&diff=1118928502&oldid=1118928187&diffmode=source

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

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

Comments:

If you look at the user's history, edit warring is not uncommon. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem&type=revision&diff=1118931025&oldid=1118902537&diffmode=source#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion. So Masem clearly understands the rules and flagrantly violates them. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I will point out Daniel hit 3RR on this before, plus was adding OR (calling Stadia deprecated when no sources do that), in addition to pushing a certain fact out of the lede's narrative . #1 (original edit), #2 , #3 , #4 . I was also in the process of trying to incorporate the date earlier in the lede but in the logical narrative where it makes sense. M asem  (t) 19:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also you did look at that last edit warning about me how it was resolved? - That was the nominator that was causing the problem, not me. M asem  (t) 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel.Cardenas, how many times did you restore this new edit ? It appears you restored it 3 times.  Why?  Wouldn't it have been better to take that to the talk page? Springee (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I restored 3 times and made improvements based on masems criticism. Discussed in the update reason to the page.  For example first revert by masem reason was that it hasn't been shutdown yet.  I responded, that no one said it had been shutdown. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * For the charge of original research, I find that really silly. Deprecation means means discouragement from use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation  On Stadia's FAQ page,  and as I edited the the page to say, no more user subscriptions, no more purchases, etc...  Deprecation definitely looks like an appropriate depiction to me.  From: https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/12790109
 * We have now closed the Stadia Store and disabled all commerce on the Stadia platform, including new subscriptions.
 * Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just not accepting any more purchases doesn't mean its deprecated, that has a very specific meaning in computing that, if that what how Google was considering the service, they would have outright said that. They said they are shutting it down but that the service is still active for those that have it, but they aren't providing an alternative. So it is OR to assign it that term. M asem (t) 20:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what Masem means by "computing", but Stadia is a consumer facing service and one should use terms as defined by common dictionaries. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Other than spilling over here, is the actual content issue being discussed anywhere? I can't see anything on the article talk page, or either Masem's or Daniel's user talk pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like you were both at 3 reverts and were edit-warring but you stopped when this report was filed so it seems a bit stale a day and a half later. I agree with Sideswipe9th, it's surprising to see that neither or you started a discussion on the article talk page. This would be preferable as it would draw other editors into the discussion. When it becomes a You vs. Me edit war, it's hard not to fight to have the last word. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

User:PavelSI reported by User:Gwennire (Result: No action)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:


 * User clearly has political motivation when implying that the standard for including jump attempts should change as of IOC's ban on Russian athlete s following the war on Ukraine. Gwennire (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 'Standard' is a fiction in Gwennire's mind. It was a habit and nothing more. The habit to refer ISU as a common scale - it was good while ISU manage scating competitions of all nations. Not IOC but ISU should to say. Currently is not. Due to the political motivation of ISU. I add info on the scating results beyond ISU, but some people revert it. I write here more. PavelSI (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, look this . I try to split ISU-driven and non-ISU-driven information. Why does the info needed to make the article good? ISU ban the strongest figure scater women. ISU positions in its own rank №№ 1,2,5,6,7 (as of 24 february 2022 begin of war, source )... Were banned. The current list of ISU ranks make a distorted opinion. If to discuss the junior scaters, ISU-driven distortion is catastrophic. WIKI shoild to be neutral, escape political-driven experts. PavelSI (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no a date having 4 reverts, but there is a 24h interval. Apologize. PavelSI (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While there were two days where the user walked right up to the line, it seems that since then things have moved to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)