Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive461

User:MatewH reported by User:Moxy (Result: blocked for 3 days )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1119161897 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1119090194 by Moxy (talk)"
 * IP edit ?
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1119161897 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1119090194 by Moxy (talk)"
 * IP edit ?
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1119161897 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1119090194 by Moxy (talk)"
 * IP edit ?
 * IP edit ?
 * IP edit ?
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* “Right-wing populism”. */"

Comments:

Editor unwilling to join talk.....is in editwars over a few other articles currently like here and here and here Moxy - 04:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think this user's unwilling to back down from edit-warring. If that doesn't work, then perhaps it should be temporarily fully protected. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 05:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The individual needs to be blocked, in order to get the hint. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems so, given their refusal to heed editors' requests to discuss on talk pages. In all, there are five concerned articles. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seemingly no admin has came to solve this, so what would be another option? AIV? Or ANI? Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 07:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Magnatyrannus AIV seems worthwhile to me. That said I don't have any experience in reporting disruptive users through any of these processes. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've gone ahead and added this editor. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * JBW (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

User:M.Ashraf333 reported by User:Toomanyyearskodakblack (Result: Nominator indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maryam_Nawaz&oldid=1118809678

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:M.Ashraf333#Vandalism_warning

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

Comments:

User:M.Ashraf333 has been edit warring with me on Maryam Nawaz and Sadaf Naeem. They are removing sourced info and adding unsourced things. For example on Sadaf Naeem I corrected the year from 2002 to 2022 and they reverted it for no reason. I already warned them on their talk page but they didn't care.
 * Nominator indefinitely blocked. M.Ashraf333, who was not notified of this report, made only one recent edit at Maryam Nawaz, whereas Toomanyyearskodakblack has violated 3RR at the article. See the block log for further bases for the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

User:2001:9E8:37E:4900:7805:15C5:9819:7A33 reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* In popular media */ I've added a citation stop removing it bozo"
 * 2)  "/* In popular media */"
 * 3)  "/* In popular media */ added citation"
 * 4)  "/* In popular media */"
 * 1)  "/* In popular media */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message related to your edit (level 4)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)

Comments:

Fixed from previous report. Resorted to personal attacks in edit summaries and has made no attempt at discussion according to WP:BRD ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . Specifically, 2001:9e8::/35 has been blocked for a day, and Men in black has been semi-protected for a week. Favonian (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Fayninja reported by User:MrOllie (Result: P-Blocked 1 week from Sherwani)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "some random dude out of nowhere vandalising scholarly material"
 * 2)  ""even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism." Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring...equal space must be provided to all conflicting research and views if not it is nothing short of publication bias...one of the biggest obstacles to the scientific community."
 * 3)  "WP:SCHOLARSHIP - Peer review is applicable to biased journals (a journal is not a research paper but a publisher). Dr's Gupta's work is published by the academic press of the University of Glasgow, UK which is a Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."
 * 4)  "Dr. Gupta's work is based on primary figures and illustrations that go back centuries into history. Pls study the research paper before making groundless revisions. WP policy is strictly against unjustified edit warring."
 * 5)  "Dr. Toolika Gupta has a PhD in History of Arts (full time) in (Dress and Textiles) from the University Of Glasgow,UK, in 2016. You cannot get a degree more relevant and specific to research on the field of sherwani history than this. https://glasgow.academia.edu/ToolikaGupta/CurriculumVitae"
 * 6)  "rm vandalism"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Partially from Sherwani. DatGuyTalkContribs 20:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

User:97.112.217.211 reported by User:Cnilep (Result: Blocked for 72 hours))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RAS_syndrome&diff=1119169320&oldid=1114507891]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RAS_syndrome&type=revision&diff=1119164405&oldid=1118938334]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RAS_syndrome&type=revision&diff=1119166302&oldid=1119165087]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RAS_syndrome&type=revision&diff=1119169320&oldid=1119168971]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A97.112.217.211&type=revision&diff=1119168721&oldid=1119168538]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARAS_syndrome&type=revision&diff=1119170849&oldid=1119165826]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A97.112.217.211&type=revision&diff=1119171620&oldid=1119171412]

Comments:

See also, below above. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Also see also: User talk:Cnilep/Archive/31 October 2022. Cnilep (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

This user was given access to talk space during their block. At one point they stated their intent to continue edit warring on the article when their block expired. The admin then asked them to explain that comment, and subsequently warned them that there was no 3RR exemption, based on their reply. Despite that, as soon as their block expired, they resumed edit-warring, as noted in the diffs presented in this report. - w o lf  02:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

User:GenoV84 reported by User:2603:7081:4E0F:920D:A5AD:A58F:13D:FF53 (Result: IP range blocked)
Page: Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

This editor is extremely tendentious and has been guarding their edits aggressively across several pages recently. To avoid confusion, I am the same editor as 2603:7081:4e0f:920d:7d96:ce0d:6fbe:256d and 74.70.220.192. I do not have a Wikipedia account.
 * Result: An IP has been blocked one month (/64 range). Based on behavior that IP appears to be evading a block on . That account has been blocked indef by another admin as a vandalism-only account. I'm also semiprotecting the article in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not have, and have never had, a Wikipedia account. I am not Manafaeistlanguage. I have no idea how to prove this, but I'm open to suggestions. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:A5AD:A58F:13D:FF53 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, my contributions are not vandalism. I have no idea how you can think otherwise. I've been discussing my changes in a painfully civil way while the other user has been hurling abuse at me. 2603:7081:4E0F:920D:A5AD:A58F:13D:FF53 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Fahrurozi.86 reported by User:Stvbastian (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1119189312 by Stvbastian (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* World Junior Championships */"
 * 3)  "/* BWF World Tour (2 runners-up) */"
 * 4)  "/* References */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1118808639 by Stvbastian (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1118808639 by Stvbastian (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Rehan Naufal Kusharjanto."
 * 2)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Rehan Naufal Kusharjanto."
 * 3)   "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Rehan Naufal Kusharjanto."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unsourced section in BLP article */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Unsourced section in BLP article */ comment"

Comments:


 * 1)  When i gave the user level 3 warning, the user used the local language (maybe Javanese) to curse at me (I used Google translate about the statement).
 * 2) This user persistently added unsource or poorly source to BLP articles. I tried to advise him several times, but the user did not heed my advice. Stvbastian (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the user was heading for a block, on BLP grounds even more than edit warring, and the incivility didn't help, but since then they have pretty much clammed up, almost blocking themselves. I suspect from the use of Indonesian to communicate when they do that there may be competence issues in play, and should they recur the admin corps should be a lot less generous than I am being right now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Muhammad boboev reported by User:Dylnuge (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "47 civilians were killed after Kyrgyzstan attacked a mosque with bayraktar TB2"
 * 2)  "Let me remind you that Kyrgyzstan attacked MOSQUES with Bayraktar TB2"
 * 3)  "Let Me Remind you that Kyrgyzstan Used Bayraktar"
 * 4)  "Kyrgyzstan used Bayraktars against civilians"
 * 5)  "Kyrgyzstan used Bayraktar during the conflict"
 * 6)  "41 dead"
 * 7)  "on the part of Tajikistan, 41 people were killed, this is stated by all Tajik media, Radio Ozodi named 84 counting the last conflict, which was on January 27"
 * 1)  "41 dead"
 * 2)  "on the part of Tajikistan, 41 people were killed, this is stated by all Tajik media, Radio Ozodi named 84 counting the last conflict, which was on January 27"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Original: Block:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:



Comments:

User was partially blocked from editing 2022 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes for a week due to constant edit warring on that page. During their block they didn't make any edits, and now have returned to edit warring. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive460 Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 04:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Added some more recent edits here in. As far as I can tell, what's happening at this page is that there's dissonance between the information being put out by the two governments involved in this conflict, and editors are engaged in a battle to change things to the version they support (generally at the expense of things like page formatting, citation validity, and civility). User:Muhammad boboev isn't the only editor involved here, and some others have been warned. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 14:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the user's edits are constructive, why are they being reported? If they are not, then they did not break 3RR and seem to have stopped editing the page for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify I'm not reporting a 3RR violation alone (as that hasn't strictly happened) but continued edit warring on a page involving an editor who was previously blocked for the same. I'm not sure if anyone engaging in said edit war is behaving constructively; the changes are mostly a back and forth and no attention is being paid to sourcing, and pretty much every account involved is only editing at this page (not strictly an issue, of course, but definitely seems a bit WP:NOTHERE). Also I somewhat suspect User:Ahmad boboev of being related here, given the name and behavior.
 * If this is more appropriate at ANI I can move it there; otherwise I'm fine with a non-result here but I personally am going to step off this page. I'd note that right now, the information in the infobox directly disagrees with the source originally provided, that three of the "sources" listed are improperly listed domain names with no linked articles, and that the fourth is broken. This is, generally speaking, the state this page has been in as a result of constant edit warring that's been going on for over a month. I'm unclear on the appropriate venue to raise these issues if it isn't being discussed on the talk page. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 04:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

User:38.108.133.36 reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Decline)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed note regarding what can and cannot be found using a Google search.  Added note regarding possible fines for being caught in the vicinity."
 * 2)  "No need to tell the world what they can and cannot find on on Google.  If they want to find the location, let them do so themselves."
 * 3)  "Info added on fines"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continued edit-warring after warning JBL (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing them at three reverts, still, not four. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not 4RR. I came here to report this user. A topic ban from Hyperion (tree) may be more ideal. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * They don't need a topic ban, they need to discuss on the talk page. Even a partial block from the article (to get them to raise the issue on the talk-page) would be fine. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right, it is unambiguous edit-warring but not a violation of 3RR (unless one considers the initial deletion
 * as a reversion, I never remember how that's supposed to work). JBL (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, sorry, I must have messed something up filing the report, because that one's included and ths one (that you've reverted already) is not. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User has stopped editing since this discussion was started. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User:BilledMammal reported by User:KoA (Result: See WP:ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Articles_for_deletion/Bothriospila
 * 1) 22:53, October 30, 2022
 * 2) 14:45, November 2, 2022
 * 3) 15:00, November 2, 2022
 * 4) 15:07, November 2, 2022

Articles for deletion/Adalbus
 * 1) 18:59, October 31, 2022
 * 2) 14:45, November 2, 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:

This involves edit warring at two AfDs BilledMammal started, but focusing primarily on Articles for deletion/Bothriospila for now. Even though BilledMammal is at 3 reverts there right now, WP:3RR is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times, and there's some urgency for disruption of a wiki-process instead of "normal" content edit warring. Normally I would have held back on filing when it looks like they have stopped reverting for now, but their WP:NOTTHEM response on their talk page is not encouraging (and a continued issue for days now). I'm hoping an admin can at least get across to them even with a warning in a WP:PREVENTATIVE fashion as they tend to only start using relevant talk pages once someone tries to hold the line on their edit warring.

The short of it is that they are modifying the target of the AfD nomination by edit warring in the above diffs partway through the process when editors had already commented. Multiple editors have tried to fix this as it's a huge no-no to modify RfCs, AfDs, etc. part-way through, even as the nom, and it is a much bigger deal than a violation of WP:TALK at an article talk page. The same has happened over at Articles for deletion/Adalbus, so running up reverts in multiple places.

For background, this is part of a larger dispute they're continuing first reported at ANI related to edit warring at Bothriospilini. There the page had to be protected by El_C due to BM edit warring (it took 3 reverts to get them to the talk page finally), but was lifted when BM said they would stop. There, editors complained when they realized BM was misleading them at AfD. Plantdrew summarized the issue well in reference to BM's AfD actions: It is disrupting the AfD, in that the AfD is predicated only on WP:CONTENTFORK. But I've never seen another AfD predicated on CONTENTFORK, where the content forking was performed by the AfD nominator shortly before opening the AfD. Nobody in the AfD has yet brought up the fact that the nominator did the forking (I plan to do so; I had started writing my !vote, but it referred to BilledMammal's version of this article, so now I need to rework it (but I don't mind the disruption)). Performing a content fork and then arguing for AfD based on the content being forked is an...interesting tactic. In short, BilledMammal tried to edit war in a content fork version immediately before the AfD that wasn't caught until a bit later, tried to claim the page had to stay at their new version and didn't need talk page consensus because they started the AfD, and that resulted in the initial protection. I see Bishonen also blocked BM for disrupting wiki-process awhile back, so maybe they have more experience with handling BM than I do from just the past few days.

For this report, they continued that edit warring at the AfDs now by trying to change the target Bothriospilini at AfD to their preferred version rather than what actually exists at the page, resulting in continuing to mislead/confuse readers as Plantdrew described above. This is longer than I'd prefer for an AN3 report, but that WP:GAMING folks are complaining about + edit warring at an AfD is why I'm asking for a response here instead of ANI on the recent round of acute edit warring BM started up again. It's a mess to sort through and I'm out of non-admin tool ideas. Edit warring is at the center of the actionable issues here, so I'm hoping for a more focused look even after things (hopefully) took yet another break to keep it from spreading even more. If admins think it's better to just tack this on at the end of the long ANI thread instead, I can do that too. KoA (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * KoA has misrepresented the situation. First, they say I reverted three times at Bothriospilini; I reverted twice, across several days, with the first of these being due to the provided rollback summary not applying to that article and in the consequent belief that the editor was not objecting to that edit. They reverted twice, across one hour. They also imply that I was not willing to discuss at the talk page, but neglect to mention that I did and that rather than engage with it.
 * In regards to this report, after their somewhat pointy reverts (see the ANI discussion for that assessment from independent editors) at Bothriospilini and Adalbus, I modified the link in my nomination to ensure it continued pointing at the same content, thus ensuring the context remained consistent. They insisted on reverting this, in violation of WP:TPO, multiple times . BilledMammal (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is now running in parallel with the discussion at WP:ANI. Anything that needs to be added - or elaborated on - may be done so there. Please consider the discussion here closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Helptottt reported by User:Iaof2017 (Result: Referred to AN/I)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

is extremely tendentious and is persistently removing sourced content as well as ignoring the references given in the article within 24 hours, despite notifying him several times. He is terming every single opposing edit as "badly written", "false" and "senseless". Edit warring is happening for a while and it seems that the user do not want to end it. The article was even protected for a week, while two other blocked disrupting users have even turned out to be sockpuppets. Iaof2017 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User is going on with his removing attempts of sourced content without consensus on the talkpage . Iaof2017 (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason there was an edit war in the first place was because the user laof2017 made shocking edits across the entire article. That's why his version of the article was reverted by another editor as well. Please, read through the talk page of the article to get a better sense of what actually happened. The user went as far as falsifying chart positions and violated several guidelines re: record charts, yet accused other editors of "not reading the sources" and "not knowing the guidelines". Yesterday I started editing the article, issue by issue, and laof2017 undid my edits again, within minutes, just repeating that there was "no improvement". Even though it was agreed upon on the talk page of the article that a multitude of issues need to be solved. I have never had such an unpleasant experience while editing on Wikipedia, the user constantly uses demeaning and accusatory language towards me, to basically stop me from editing.--Helptottt (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should I engage with your accusations and your attempts to discourage me from editing this article? The things I edited were already agreed on, by two other editors on the article's talk page. When you altered the article, which resulted in numerous mistakes, you removed sourced content and now you're accusing me of removing content that you transferred from another section (that you inexplicably removed altogether). Can users have "ownership" over articles? I am basically being hounded by laof2017 for editing an article he seems to think to "own." Helptottt (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your accusations (wikihounding and ownership) seem to have gone beyond the scope of this noticeboard and as the talk page seems to be offering more heat than light, I think you should go to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

User:173.212.124.217 reported by User:Normchou (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I'm calling for a lock on this article and for a higher authority to mediate this dispute, as changes are being made with little to no justification, resulting in a pointless edit war that will not resolve on its own."
 * 2)  "Again, highly debatable relevancy; please see talk page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1119816767 by Amigao (talk) - WP:REL ?"
 * 4)  "it shocks me that a single typo-filled banner placed by one unknown human being is so significant as both a single event as well as supposed relevancy to the 20th congress that it would get an entire section on this page. justify its inclusion otherwise it seems needlessly shoehorned in to the average viewer."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 'Protest' Section */"

Comments:

IP user was warned by multiple seasoned editors about their edit-warring behavior but defiantly chose to continue their disruption to the page. Normchou  💬 16:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I notice you decided to leave out the part where an edit war was already acknowledged and consensus was attempted to be built, but you instead decided to dive in and revert it yet again before a final conclusion could be reached. I'm not sure why I'm being reported, when I was the one perfectly fine with stopping the back-and-forth edits. 173.212.124.217 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Bedivere (Result:Blocked for three months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

As I have just expressed on the talk page of Camila Vallejo, user Dentren has been consistently and repeatedly trying to add contentious and controversial material to articles about people related to the Gabriel Boric administration (including Boric himself). This behavior is the same they've had in the Spanish Wikipedia, where they were first blocked from editing Gabriel Boric's article and then indefinitely blocked as a sole-purpose account, for the aforementioned reasons. While Dentren has not made three reverts (neither have I) it is obvious they won't stop their relentless efforts to reinstate controversial content on Wikipedia. Such disruptive behavior needs to be stopped for once and for all. Bedivere (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:The Drover's Wife reported by User:George Ho (Result: Page fully protected for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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 of starting RFC after initial discussion was made.

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

Comments:

The user reverted my redirecting the article to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 1–7) amidst ongoing discussion, claiming that the redirect had "no consensus". After sending the user a warning, the user also sent me a warning but then accused me of abusing the process. George Ho (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * User:George Ho unilaterally WP:BOLD merged the long-existent Ruby Tandoh article a year ago. He was reverted, but revert-warred to keep the redirect in place. On 29 October, User:GRuban noticed the stealth merger and objected, and I supported him in doing that (which was the first time I'd noticed it either). User:George Ho then, in a desperate attempt to retain his unilateral merger, started an WP:RFC with his unilateral merger as the default position, rather than the article that existed for many years, so that if it deadlocked due to low turnout (which it has, currently, at 2-2) it would default to retention, despite the fact it was a unilateral decision in the first place. He's subsequently acknowledged on the talk place that he concedes she may be independently notable as per Wikipedia notability guidelines but staunchly opposes the article being restored regardless because of his own personal viewpoints. It amounts to one editor trying to abuse process to eliminate a longstanding article without consensus because he couldn't get one: this would never have succeeded if he'd gone through WP:AFD or otherwise proposed a merger somewhere where it might have been more widely noticed at the time. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggestion to merge the Tandoh page was made a year ago at Talk:The Great British Bake Off/Archive 2. George Ho (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * She was barely mentioned in that discussion and there was no notification that any merger was being discussed at Talk:Ruby Tandoh. Why would people following her for her subsequent career be assumed to be following a low-turnout proposal at Talk:The Great British Bake Off that originally didn't refer to her, and then was only brought up as an afterthought in later discussion? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * in full for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's one week, actually. George Ho (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What I get for doing this while I'm nearly asleep ... Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Davide King reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "that's just a way to avoid same verbatim from the source but let me attempt to change it to what the source says; as for relevant, we have the Israeli-occupied territories article, NPR is considered a reliable source, and this is cited as fact in an article discussing the election, how it's not at least somewhoat relevant, considering the campaign (discussed in the same article) is beyond me"
 * 2)  "/* Electoral system */ not irrelevant if we describe this as 'Israeli-occupied territories' and the reliable source related to the election mentioned this as relevant"
 * 3)  "/* Electoral system */ not a valid reason to delete, this article is about the election and is from a reliable source"
 * 4)  "edit conflict; ce with refs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  23:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC) "/* Palestinians in occupied territories */ new section"

Comments:

A technical remark. As soon as we are discussing a possible 3RR violation, I am wondering if the edit made at 14:38, 4 November can be considered as a revert. Whose edit was reverted by DK when he added "" instead of " "?

A general remark. My formal analysis of the talk page discussion shows that DK said that one reliable source say "X", but his opponents argue that that source is irrelevant. However, I was unable to understand why they believe that NPR statement is irrelevant. It is also necessary to note that DR's opponents cite no sources their opinion is based upon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Davide King is warned for edit warring at 2022 Israeli legislative election. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. The 'war' in this case was their serial re-addition of 'While Palestinians living in Israel..'. (For example, in the 14:38 4 November diff above — scroll all the way to the bottom to see those words being added). This addition was well-sourced but it was judged to be unnecessary by several other editors. In other words, inclusion of these words was a pure judgment call for the editors but Davide chose *not* to wait for consensus after their change was initially reverted. Luckily Davide did participate on talk and they stopped just before hitting the 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 5 November 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 1120199197 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1120198426 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1120194603 by عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) You already admitted that some of the numbers were wrong so you changed them, but the numbers you added are made up as well so the tags should remain."
 * 4)  "Exaggerated claims of "300 officers killed" and "12,000 massacred" are not backed by the unreliable web source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Continuing an edit war after your block expired */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Algiers expedition (1541)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After their block from last week expired, they are now back to continue. When I reminded them that it's not a good idea, they blanked my comment with an edit summary that says Go cry about it again. So here I am, crying about it again. M.Bitton (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's the previous AN3 report, showing when they were blocked by . Also, please note that they are edit warring on two articles, including the one they were reported for last week. M.Bitton (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The IP user doesn't even debate with us in the talk page and just keep throwing its reverting edits with no clear explanations. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * – 1 month by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: Referred to AN/I)
Page:

User being reported:

User edits in portal namespace:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

While 3RR has not been reached in this case, given that it has been less then a week since Alsoriano97's last block for edit warring, and taking into account Alsoriano97's egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF in connection with the edit warring conduct in this case, I feel that it is worth further examining Alsoriano97's conduct and considering further sanctions.


 * 1)  Uhm….
 * 2)  A "deputy minister" is certainly unnotable.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of user removal 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:


 * Alsoriano97 was blocked less then a week ago for edit warring and violating 3RR as a result of this discussion.


 * On 4 Nov, Alsoriano97 reverted a entry relating to the 2022 FIFA World Cup . No reason was provided, with the nonsensical edit summary Uhm….


 * The removal is reverted by the original editor . Given that no reason was given for the removal of a legitimate entry, this seemed to be reasonable. Subsequently, the entry is removed again, with no edit summary.


 * Given the nonsensical and unjustified removals, I re-added the entry, while amending the wording of the entry.


 * Afterwards, the entry is edited by a number of editors to further correct wording and content. Despite the subsequent edits by many editors, Alsoriano97 removes the entry again, claiming A "deputy minister" is certainly unnotable.


 * I reverted this removal, and told Alsoriano97 to gain consensus on the talk page, creating a new entry for the discussion.
 * Clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again.
 * I further issued a warning relating to edit warring on Alsoriano97's talk page relating to the removals.
 * Please stop removing a clearly notable event concerning multiple countries at a major international event. Please gain consensus for removal of the entry, worked-on by multiple editors, before removing the entry again. You may gain consensus at Portal talk:Current events/2022 November 4.


 * In response to the edit warring warning, Alsoriano97 removed the warning with the following edit summary.
 * Ridiculous your tear down mania against me lol. No lessons you can give.
 * In response to the talk page discussion, Alsoriano97 wrote the below.
 * do you really think that a boycott by a deputy minister is a "clearly notable event"? Do you know what a "deputy minister" is? Do you know that the World Cup has not even started? Do you know that people don't come to Wikipedia to "play"?
 * Both replies contain egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF against not only myself, but the previous blocking administrator and this noticeboard in general.


 * A further reply by Alsoriano97 on the talk page has shown he is not willing to discuss or compromise relating to the subject-matter of the entry.
 * It's still irrelevant. "Announce"? Come on, I'm sure it can wait until the day of the game, right? That's what can be remarkable. Everyone announces many things and Wikipedia is a serious place. It's just that the boycott is still being done by a deputy minister from a subnational (although sovereigb) entity. Do you know what rank that is.
 * Alsoriano97's tone again breaches WP:CIVIL.


 * While 3RR has not been reached in this case, given that it has been less then a week since Alsoriano97's last block for edit warring, and taking into account Alsoriano97's egregious breaches of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA & WP:AGF in connection with the edit warring conduct in this case, I feel that it is worth further examining Alsoriano97's conduct and considering further sanctions.


 * Alsoriano97 has also directly challenged and dismissed the legitimacy of his last block, claiming it to be a tear down mania against him and that there were No lessons that could be given. Given this dismissal, and his pattern of behavior before and after the block, I believe that the previous block has not had the intended effect and will not be sufficient to stop his disruptive conduct and edit warring activities.

Background:


 * Alsoriano97 has a history of edit warring, civility issues and tendentious editing on Portal:Current Events going back many years.
 *  A search by an administrator returned 66 potential violations of 3RR over a 3 year period.
 * An AN/I filing was previously opened against Alsoriano97, where Alsoriano97 was warned to not further engage in the above issues.
 * 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/3RRArchive460
 * 2) Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105
 * 3) Portal_talk:Current_events/2022_November_4
 * 4) User_talk:Alsoriano97
 * 5) 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) 12:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Alsoriano97's comment: I have not committed a violation of the 3RR. This proposal is already flawed. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that this is the edit warring noticeboard, where edit warring is defined as behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute". 3RR is not strictly required to bring a filing, but recommended. Carter00000 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Something this long is getting way out of scope for this noticeboard. Since the last AN/I was rather long and complex, I think it should go back there. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Halbared reported by User:MapReader (Result: Both editors blocked from article 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:

A clear breach of 3RR, reverting edits by me and, four reverts over less than 14 hours MapReader (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * from the article. Yes, Halbared broke 3RR while he was trying to game it during a multiday edit war. And you couldn't stop reverting while the talk page discussion was ongoing. You claimed consensus but as far as I could tell it was just the two of you increasingly getting in each other's faces. You need some cooler outside head or heads on this. I don't care where you get it from. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Daniel, I agree with regards to myself, I just got a bit silly (outside world quite upsetting at the moment), but that is no excuse. My flouting the 3RR rule is obviously accurate. I wasn't gaming, just didn't notice in the heat. I have no qualms about being banned for my foolishness.Halbared (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:2C0:8E80:7A80:F8EF:32C4:4FA0:D1A7 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Hello! The page lists its definition in a very convulted way. The clearest translation I have found is simply "maiden, damsel". It is also how the word is translated in many instances in Biblical texts. I tried adding this into the page."
 * 2)  "/* Etymology and social context */This says scholars but then only cites one scholar. Wouldn't certain scholars or a description of the scholar be more precise?"
 * 3)  "/* Biblical usage */"
 * 4)  "/* Etymology and social context */"
 * 1)  "/* Biblical usage */"
 * 2)  "/* Etymology and social context */"
 * 1)  "/* Etymology and social context */"
 * 1)  "/* Etymology and social context */"
 * 1)  "/* Etymology and social context */"
 * 1)  "/* Etymology and social context */"
 * 1)  "/* Etymology and social context */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Listen to the pedantic sockpuppet */ new section"
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Lauriswift911 reported by User:Dylnuge (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)

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

Comments:

This article has had back and forth edit warring between various users and anonymous IPs since September, primarily over the number of casualties to list in the infobox. The situation appears to be that various numbers have been provided for casualties on the Tajikistan side of the conflict, from both governments involved as well as a third source. Since edit warring was disrupting the page (breaking existing citations, adding citations with things like a bare link to bbc.com, etc) and the sources seemed to genuinely be in conflict, I proposed listing multiple on the infobox with clear indication of which party was claiming them—this was also the state of the page before the edit warring began (e.g. at ).

That said, I don't want to get into an edit war myself here; I have no stake in this beyond wanting to repair information that doesn't match what's written in the cited sources. I have attempted to bring editors involved in the conflict to the talk page, but no one is engaging there. The height of the conflict seems to have died down, but User:Lauriswift911 continues to change the number listed as "per Tajikistan" to 84 despite the fact that that contradicts the source and isn't listed elsewhere. Nothing here is WP:3RR (it's more of a slow-revert war than a fast one), but I don't personally want to be involved in a revert war (and I think adding uncited material doesn't rise to the level of obvious vandalism), so I'd appreciate another editor's eyes on it. Thanks! Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 17:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Tyler.904 reported by User:Sumanuil (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:1BGhimire reported by User:Yeti Dai (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User, blocked on 31st October for disruptive editing and edit warring on article KP Sharma Oli, has once again involved in same. Moreover, speedy deletion nomination of article No, Not Again and Sockpuppet investigations/Usedtobecool show that the user is interested in creating dispute rather than constructive contributions in wikipedia. Yeti Dai (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Ririd69 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: No action for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Another user had given warning on user talk page. David Biddulph (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok i'll stop. Friend of yours is he? Ririd69 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to be blocked for personal attacks, you're well on your way.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * how is that a personal attack? Ririd69 (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I await your explanation. I repeat, HOW IS THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK? Ririd69 (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The comment could be interpreted as an accusation of collusion. Unfounded accusations against other editors, especially about vandalism, can be deemed to be personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that you've been making disruptive edits and now seem to be trying to start a fight, I suggest you back off before you get blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. — Czello 21:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So block me. Ririd69 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So Gavin's now resigned. Again. Would you like me to update his page? I'll try to maintain your sanctimonious tone in my explanation of his despicable behaviour. Or shall i leave it to Mr Biddulph, whose concern for accuracy in this matter seems so paramount. I meanwhile will address myself to attempting to have his honour rescinded. I'll get back to you with an edit should i be successful. In the meantime feel free to block me. Ririd69 (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * His resignation doesn't remove his honorific, which is what you're trying to do. So no, don't update his page. — Czello 10:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: No action for now. But the above conversation with User:Ririd69 does not inspire confidence for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Newzild reported by User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (Result: No action)
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 user removal of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: No discussion was initiated on talk page. User made repeated edits despite multiple warnings in edit summaries and warnings posted to user talk page to seek consensus, and cease edit warring. User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99


 * Comment by Moxy odd we have this problem across a few articles Reich_Security_Main_Office.... and....Death_of_Adolf_Hitler. Aslo best to edit while logged in ip addition. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 03:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this seems to have (ahem) died down since yesterday, I do not think any action is necessary at this time. However, if it resumes I think it would be. As noted by nominator, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. There should be. I refer both of you to MOS:SUICIDE, which says that while the phrase "committed suicide" is not forbidden on enwiki, it is nonetheless strongly discouraged, with alternatives provided (one of which is, in fact "died by suicide"). I for one think you could best settle this by rephrasing to "Hitler and the others took their own lives." But whatever floats your boat. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Barton1234 reported by User:Shibbolethink (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 11:26, 29 September 2022 for recent reverts
 * 18:02, 2 May 2020 for more remote reverts

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:28, 8 November 2022
 * 2) 20:17, 3 November 2022
 * 3) 18:51, 3 November 2022

User WP:OWN reverting others' attempts to reduce WP:OVERCITE or otherwise helpfully improve article (while calling it all "vandalism"):
 * 1) 10:20, 26 April 2022
 * 2) 09:44, 13 December 2021
 * 3) 10:51, 6 July 2021
 * 4) 12:03, 8 February 2021
 * 5) 20:39, 25 August 2020
 * 6) 16:41, 21 August 2020
 * 7) 09:26, 4 May 2020

Unilaterally removing "excessive citations" template without discussing on talk after removing a paltry 2 cites from a page that has dozens and dozens:
 * 1) 18:06, 9 August 2021
 * 2) 18:05, 9 August 2021

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 07:43, 4 November 2022 Follow WP:BRD. You are editing against consensus
 * 2) 01:07, 9 November 2022 (EW template on user talk)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) 00:35, 4 November 2022 @User:Animalparty attempting to resolve other dispute with user never responding
 * 2) 11:51, 4 November 2022 Me: See above discussion regarding WP:OVERCITE. The consensus here is to remove these many multiple redundant citations. What specifically do you have issues with?

Attempts to ask about COI, to which the user has never responded (or responded on any talk page for that matter):
 * 1) 23:05, 10 February 2021 @User:PaleoNeonate on user talk
 * 2) 11:50, 4 November 2022 (me on article talk)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * 1) 13:35, 9 November 2022

Comments:

This is a weird one. Basically, @User:Barton1234, who creaeted this page, has added dozens and dozens of citations to it of this guy's every paper ever, basically turning it into a CV, even adding "number of citations" to each article, as if it were a faculty bio page extolling the h-factor. Any attempt to bring the page in line with WP:OVERCITE (or improve the article sometimes in other ways) is met with a revert in the style of WP:OWN from this user simply saying "vandalism". They have rarely edited any other page, and typically only as it relates to Ebright, to add Ebright's papers to those other pages, or to basically make them say what Ebright's article says:. Given obvious COI implications, myself and another user have tried to broach the COI topic, to which the user has never responded (indeed, has never responded to anything on any talk page), continuing instead to revert despite consensus on the talk page against their actions.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * . This is not the appropriate noticeboard. If you wish, you may take your complaint to WP:ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Veritst1.6 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed false, outdated information."
 * 2)  "Removed outdated information, removed paraphrasing, removed opinion not based in research"
 * 3)  "Removed false information"
 * 4)  "Removes content which has been proven incorrect and outdated."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New a/c on the rampage; block or maybe semi the page? Bon courage (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware that one was not allowed to remove incorrect & opinion-based information without replacing it. This seems counterproductive to supplying accurate information but I will be happy to gather the correct research and *current* information since I have access to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritst1.6 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Brotherbenz reported by User:Llammakey (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1120827770 by Llammakey (talk) You were reverted too. I put examples up on the talk pages.."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1120824699 by Llammakey (talk) Keeping to ships name from the shipping companies websitre"
 * 3)  "Changing to the name of the proper name of the vessel from Interlakes website"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on MV Mark W. Barker."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* M/V on vessels. */ comment"

Comments:

I told him to go read pages after I had reverted him. He then just reverted me. He also reverted me on the River-class freighter page too. Llammakey (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am all for accuracy on here, the proper vessels name is the M/V Mark W. Barker. It's even on the Interlake Steamship's website, number of vessels on here are using the M/V format. He reverted me. article even shows M/V to be used.
 * MV Sam Laud
 * MV Walter J. McCarthy Jr.
 * MV Indiana Harbor
 * Brotherbenz (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no warnings, no attempt to talk it out on the talk page. Just one post then I got reported.. Brotherbenz (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Brotherbenz has been warned for edit warring about a style. They may be blocked if they revert again on any ship prefixes without getting prior consensus for their edit on a talk page. To see how prefixes are usually written for other Great Lakes ships, look at the entries in . You'll see that 'MV' is a commonly-used prefix here while 'M/V' is not. If you want that convention changed you need to persuade the others. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Gyalu22, User:RF354, User:Borsoka reported by User:Aristeus01 (Result: Nominator warned)
Pages:

Users being reported:

Origin of the Romanians: Revision history [diff preferred, link permitted] History of the Romanian language: Revision history [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Romanian_language#Proto-Romanian [link] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Romanian_language [link]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#%22General_view%22 [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Romanian_language#Anchronism [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Romanian_language#Dispute_between_Aristeus01_and_Gyalu22,_29_October [diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RF354#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Borsoka#Again_as_per_polic [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gyalu22#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion [diff]

Escalation to edit war, supported by hounding tactics (same users approaching same edits collectively and simultaneously, in support of each other), attrition tactics (interspersed reverts and talk sections opened, other users joining afterwards), threats ("edit warring may have serious consequences"), and baiting (one user reverts without participating to talks and another supports the revert in order to have the minority user break the 3RR if reverting again) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeus01 (talk • contribs)


 * This is User:Aristeus01 edit warring against multiple other editors and he files a report?! This is WP:BOOMERANG at best.
 * For example I've made a single revert at Origin of the Romanians. RF354 (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ,  and myself are not identical. As far as I can remember, I have reverted some of gyalu22's edits. On the other hand, warring mentality is obviously not alien to :, . PoV pushing neither alien to them: they deleted an important part of a sentence with the edit summary "phrasing": . I think this report is only a new phase of edit warring, because I drew their attention to the consequences of WP:3RR . Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If we speak of examples:
 * Romanian language: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
 * History of the Romanian language revisions- [][] [] [] []
 * Origin of Romanians - [] [] []
 * these are all your recent reverts of my editing. Reverts, not consensus following discussion. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are diffs here of Borsoka's edits that are a week old. You also reverted others recently without reaching concensus. and  are examples from today.
 * BTW, I still don't understand why did you report me. RF354 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because others also don't agree with you they aren't working together. You see that I haven't reverted your edit on Origin of the Romanians, but made a talk section to discuss the matter before doing anything on the article. Borsoka and RF354 reverted your edit, it's their job to argue if they violated policies or not.
 * I also made a talk section in History of the Romanian language in which these users didn't intervene, so how did we support each other? I see you had/have another debate there with Borsoka, but it's about a different topic and I didn't intervene there.
 * So how am I edit warring, when both the talk sections you linked were started by me in order to prevent edit war, and only in one of the two of these participated two of the three users you accuse of edit warring? Gyalu22 (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed similar things by Aristeus01. This was very strange edit that is why I opened a talk section: Talk:History of the Romanian language, the same thing was also presented in another Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanian_language&diff=1119679608&oldid=1118848395 I also opened a new talk section in an another article when Aristeus01 reverted academic sources and named a full library as "unreliabe POV source" while he restored strange 170 years old not modern academic source (1850) that talked about 500 years ago (1300), it seems this was not "unreliabe" for him: Talk:Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) OrionNimrod (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no violation by any of the reported user at either article. is warned for two reasons: First, they should not have filed this report as it reflects worse on them than anyone else. Apparently, Aristeus01 disagrees with multiple editors and fights to keep their version in different articles, including filing this baseless report. Second, Aristeus should not insist on their version if other editors disagree; they need to resolve the dispute through discussion. If the consensus is against them, then they should stop reverting the other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * "Apparently, Aristeus01 disagrees with multiple editors and fights to keep their version in different articles" - not "multiple" but certain, and not just different articles but on topic of Romanian language. I have obviously collaborated with other editors, even the ones named here when possible.
 * "If the consensus is against them, then they should stop reverting the other users" - yes, that is exactly what I did. Consensus has not been reached, I stopped reverting, and I always partake in discussions. It is beginning to be obvious to me that the number of opinions trumps the quality of arguments while it was my understanding Wiki should not work this way, and this is why I filled this report. Perhaps I do not understand the rules and I do deserve a warning if that is the case. It just does not seem right when having three people shouting against one to blame the isolated one for shouting, and having someone else telling the isolated person to shut up, well... Aristeus01 (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your quality of argument isn't the best in Talk:Origin of the Romanians which is the only case where the number of opinions is more than two. You are talking about the stages of the development of the Daco-Romanian language when the article is about ethnogenesis. You are replacing one third of the lead with irrelevant text and accusing me of this slyness for summarizing my opinion about it in three points and asking you to give your thoughts on should change be made. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not my wording or Pov, it is the exact phrasing used in the cited sources. The lead starts with presenting where the language formed therefore should include the text. It is not slyness or maliciousness I'm escalating, it is edit waring be it in good-faith or bad-faith. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead says that the Romanian language formed north of the Jirecek line, that's already enough and there's no need to overwrite text summarizing the three theories, especially not with that "general view" stuff for the reasons I pointed out in the talk section. Gyalu22 (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, because Romanian is the result of Danubian Latin formation. Claiming the Romanian language formed north and south or only north or only south is inaccurate. Danubian Latin formed north of Jiricek, Common Romanian on the other hand is disputed, but the language was already formed at that stage. So if we want to be accurate we should say "the exact venue where Common Romanian was spoken is unknown" and not "where Romanian formed is unknown". Aristeus01 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand but the three sources you cited for a fourth general view appear to be supporters of the Daco-Roman theory if you read its definition in the third sentence. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, what they say is about language formation (up to 6th century), not Romanian territory or ethnogenesis after that with is witch those two theories talk about. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You placed an unneeded text in the place of a needed text and made it bold as it would be a theory on the origin of the Romanians. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the bold part is the one confusing, remove that, not the complete phrase. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to extend the lead with something, discuss that, don't remove a theory. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep the theory, I already agreed with it. But do not remove the conclusion text. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove it. However, reading the short description of the article, I don't think the debated substratum (whether it included territories north of the Danube or not) of Romanian has to be said so explicitly in the lead as the theories on the subject of the article are. Gyalu22 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your intervention has led to it being removed, something you didn't protest to for all the talk about consensual changes. Aristeus01 (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is my fault that it got removed, obviously, I forgot that I have no right to propose deletions. I'm going to the talk page now to write "This wasn't a nice thing" in hope that it changes anything and if it doesn't, I'm gonna start an edit war over a text that has no place in the lead... Gyalu22 (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

User:66.116.45.26 reported by User:StrangeApparition2011 (Result: Declined)
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]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=1121117180

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=1117272097

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=1115906102

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_Vista#Linus_Tech_Tips_Review_Of_Vista_Isn't_An_%22Advertisement%22

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] I have no way to contact this user. But I created a talk section on the talk page, and they didn't respond.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.116.45.26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_Vista#Linus_Tech_Tips_Review_Of_Vista_Isn't_An_%22Advertisement%22

Comments:

I have no way to contact this user, as they don't appear to be verified. But this is probably 6 or 7 times that I've edit-warred with them over a section on the Windows Vista page. They keep removing my contribution, calling it an "advertisement". it's not an advertisement. I included their credentials, as that's how you're supposed to identify that the opinion and coverage comes from a respected media figure. They won't stop removing the content, but also have NOT responded to my thread on the tech page, even after trying to tag them. They just remove it with no discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangeApparition2011 (talk • contribs)
 * You have a way: the user has a talk page, for their IP address. It's not heard. "They don't appear to be verified"--I don't know what you mean. This isn't Twitter. You say you've edit warred with them? Possibly, and I just warned you, on your talk page, for edit warring. I also removed that spammy YouTube video. Surely, after you reverted them a few times, saying "Added restrospective review of Vista" is a bit disingenuous. The IP editor gave an argument in their last three or four edits; you did not, not until the last one where you re-added the content as if nothing had happened before. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As I told you, they were not a user with an available talk page. Believe me, I know how to access a user's talk page.  They did NOT have an accessible one before.  That's why they showed up red.  And I gave my reasons for reverting the damn edits several times in the edit history section.  So don't tell me that I didn't. StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A user's talk page being red is not an excuse for you not posting on their talk page. Talk page not "available"? Make it "available", as in create the talk page yourself. If you were technically unable to create it yourself, then you should have left a message at WP:AN to ask for the talk page to be created for you. SkyWarrior  17:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

A note for the admin responding to this request: this discussion at 's talk page may be useful. SkyWarrior 17:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I never thought I'd be declining one of these reports on competence grounds, but here we are. I am absolutely flabbergasted that SA has been on Wikipedia this long without understanding that if an IP doesn't have a talk page, it only takes one click to create one. Without attempting to even communicate with the other user, you cannot cry edit war. Second, as Drmies and other users have noted, the edit you keep reinstating comes off as spammy. So restoring it is, for now, against consensus. The IP was/is right. Lastly, this is so low-grade in its frequency as not to come above the radar of this page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 reported by User:GordonGlottal (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

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

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

Comments:

This user has reverted three different users' removal of a template he added to this page (4x total reverts) apparently as part of a campaign against the edits of a fourth user. Several users have tried to get him to engage on the subject of his mass reverts, both at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1113#User%3AZhomron and on his talk page and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_176#WP:V_and_foreign-language_terms,_non-Latin_orthography_in_enwiki_articles. This is a disruptive editor who has kept edit-warring for his preferred version long after it became clear that every other user disagreed. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Commenting here just as an editor who has been called to the Torah and knows the alefbet, not as an admin. This is the second or third time I've seen this crusade of Elizium's come up. I'm starting to wonder if we need to treat it as a competence issue. This comment is so incredibly off-base that it makes it very hard to believe that he actually understands what he's edit-warring over. To vaguely analogize to Latin-script languages, it's like if someone disputed the spelling of "soupçon", and, when told "in French a 'c' followed by an 'o' needs a cedilla if it's pronounced /s/", replied "that's an underline"—claiming to know what is and isn't intuitively obvious in a system, while showing a fundamental misunderstanding of how that system works. I stress this because I want the reviewing admin to understand that this is not just a regular "he said she said" content dispute, but rather one where someone is advocating a position inconsistent even with the most basic understanding of the topic. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * - two reverts in a 24-hour period. Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:MiltenR reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Refer to AN/I)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Not particularly 3RR but long term abuse, as listed here. Also pushing a fringe view, which isn't accepted by mainstream scholars + removing reliable sources + placing unreliable websites. Beshogur (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As you have acknowledged, this is really outside the scope of this page. Looking at the article history I'd suggest you'd be better off taking it to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:David C. S. reported by User:NoonIcarus (Result: Closed as already at WP:ANI)
Pages:

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:, es:Discusión:Elecciones generales de Bolivia de 2019, es:Discusión:Crisis presidencial de Venezuela, es:Discusión:Crisis presidencial de Venezuela, es:Discusión:Crisis presidencial de Venezuela, commons:File talk:Venezuela president recognition map.svg

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

Comments: Slow paced and cross-wiki edit warring, showing traits of WP:NOTHERE. In his last revert, David has now resorted to remove maintenance tags. A more detailed explanation can be found at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Closed. Already at WP:ANI. No need to have this at both places.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

User:97.112.206.67 reported by User:Jacona (Result: blocked for a week for various disruption)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1121586503 by Jacona (talk)"
 * 2)  "You're the one edit warring over an addition that was approved by an admin.  So stop."
 * 3)  "No edit warring.  If you have an issue take it to the talk page, or take it up with C. Fred.  You know, the admin that approved the addition."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP currently partially blocked for edit warring elsewhere. Conversation has taken place entirely in edit captions, repeatedly inserts information without a RS, won't engage on talk page. Jacona (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Why am I the only one who can edit war? You were the one who kept reverting my addition that was approved directly by C. Fred.  Then when I said if you had an issue take it to the talk page, you just kept reverting my edits repeatedly.
 * Being a regular user does not mean you're exempt from the rules you preach to others. You were edit warring and refused to discuss the matter. 97.112.206.67 (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * they have broken 3R and are now at their 6th revert. M.Bitton (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2600:6C50:17F:ABB9:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked, protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:


 * The /64 range of the IP has been blocked and the article semi protected. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:I'm not perfect but I'm almost reported by User:GOG88 (Result: OP blocked for a week)
Page: Multiple (at least 8) articles and pages, including the AIV page.

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Multiple reverts in multiple pages, at least 36 reverts in total, some pages have 4 to 6 reverts in a row, all but two, without any edit summary. Stalking and reverting every edits made by me and at least one another user. Just some examples:
 * On articles:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * On AIV (have been blocked 48 hours for this):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Temporarily cannot put any warning in their talk page yet because they will revert them anyway. This will also likely drag them here to revert my report in this page and this would turn into another battleground.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

They will likely revert any edit in any talk page.

Comments:

Hostile, aggressive, and tacitern edit-warrior, apparently not here to communicate or cooperate with anyone, having a WP:OWN attitude, repeatedly restoring preferred versions in multiple articles, even at the expense of multiple editors. Not hesitant and are very ready to get into edit warring, by reverting everything:


 * Reverting my discussing message on their talk page, twice: and then  "Go away, I don't trust you". I couldn't even start a discussion with them.
 * Reverting my message in my own talk page:
 * Reverting every edit of mine on multiple pages and multiple times, using their rollback ability, without providing any reason / any edit summary, and falsely and quickly assuming bad faith / vandalism (diffs above, and just some examples among others). Have gone straight back to the undoing spree after their 48-hour block expired, still hardly without any edit summary apart from a short and vaguely worded one that is not related to the content: "Not a WP:NOTHERE user, your edits were the bad faith ones."


 * Deleting my report of them at WP:AIV while reinstating their (diffs above). The warring edit in AIV caught them to be blocked by JBW for 48 hours, and I was also suspended from editing for 31 hours, however they have been deliberately aggressive, and I'm caught-up trying to revert their reverts in that page.
 * Is now showing their intention that they obviously will not be here to cooperate, and possibly some subtle low-key personal attack, via a condescending and threatening message they have sent me. 48-hour block seems to be insufficient for them. This is a classic WP:OWN and WP:NOTHERE editor. GOG88 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, you're a relatively new account. Secondly, you couldn't even use proper English. Third, your edits won't be accepted on popular articles. You use informal writing, calling things "it" way too much, along with writing numbers less than 10 as the number alone, e.g. 4. I never did anything wrong. You even use "ghetto" language which looks ugly and won't be tolerated on Wikipedia. "Y'all"? Really? And ask any admin and anyone who often edits football articles. They won't accept it. Here, I'll make you a deal: You can make those edits if you ask several admins and people who edit articles on football and the majority say yes. So stop acting like I'm the bad person. I never did anything wrong. Other rollbackers get away with things like this based on bad-faith, unnecessary edits you do. I did the same on "Tunisia national football team" with another editor like you, and nothing happened as I warned them. You're attempting to start edit wars by lying in your edit summaries. The old version before your edits was significantly better. Don't fix it if it's perfectly fine. Quit. I even replied on your talk page; that's the way I respond. I'm undoing some of my reverts (see below). Nearly but not perfect (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So, GOG88, quit lying about me. I am not a NOTHERE editor, nor am I an OWN editor. I don't do personal attacks either. So quit your ghetto language and lies. All I simply do is edit football articles by copyediting them and you're ruining them by changing them to the wrong style that won't be accepted on nearly every Wikipedia article that's popular. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will admit, I will accept some of your changes, but not all. Your edits to some articles were unacceptable. Many admins look at a user's contributions after seeing their bad-faith edits and revert them without looking. Many. I was one of them. So I'll let some go, but don't edit the national football teams of big African countries. They won't work. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Deal: How about every time you make an edit, you leave a message on my talk page? I won't revert it, just let me know and ask if this is acceptable or if it needs work. Thank you. Nearly but not perfect (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Filer blocked for a week. They have not taken into account the fact that they were edit-warring against numerous others to restore their inferior versions of articles (including, but not limited to, using digits for numbers less than ten in violation of MOS:NUMBER, and sub-par writing such as replacing every reference to the subject of the article with "it").  They were blocked for the edit-war on WP:AIV, and when the block expired, immediately started edit-warring again, making seven reverts in the next fourteen minutes.  Reporting an editor at a behaviour noticeboard when you are displaying precisely that behaviour yourself is rarely a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Floidster reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added "indentured servitude' to the first sentence of first paragraph."
 * 2)  "Added "indentured servitude' to the first sentence of first paragraph."
 * 3)  "Added "indentured servitude' to the first sentence of first paragraph."
 * 4)  "Added "indentured servitude' to the first sentence of first paragraph.  See citation 1 for verifiable source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Slavery."
 * 2)   "/* November 2022 */ Don't revert again"

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

Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kacser reported by User:Asartea (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added better 41 characters Short description
 * 1)  "added better 41 characters Short description
 * 1)  "added better 41 characters Short description
 * 1)  "added better 41 characters Short description

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.3)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeatedly edit warring to keep a non MOS complaint and ungrammatical short description in the article -- Asartea   Talk  &#124;  Contribs  18:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked one week. The user also appears to be incompetent. Although not vandalism per se, the user's edits have been disruptive, and I've reverted them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop violating WP:NPOV. Undid revision 1121578892 by Khirurg (talk)"
 * 2)  "The paragraphs below clearly illustrate the bigger picture that resulted in the ethnic cleansing of the Chams. It's not one-dimensional, and by attributing it to one cause you are not following WP:NPOV. The expulsion of thousands, massacres of hundreds (including women and children) accompanied by rapes, looting etc etc cannot be simply rationalised by "Axis collaboration"."
 * 3)  "How many times do we have to go over this? There were multiple reasons as to why the Chams were expelled, by doing this you are attributing it all to one reason which is simply not the case. Undid revision 1121417824 by Khirurg (talk)"
 * 4)  "Ok, it's getting out of hand from everyone involved. For starters 'historical Thesprotia' doesn't mean anything, because Thesprotia is what currently exists. Second of all, the 'Epirus' is indicating the Epirus administrative unit. Chameria is accurate; the Chams were expelled from Chameria. Let's keep some logical stability here."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first revert ("Ok, this is getting out of hand") is a re-addition of the controversial irredentist term "Chameria", which was removed by multiple users recently, and thus constitutes a revert. This user is also edit-warring at Albanians (3RR breached there as well:   ) and Thesprotia, with hostile edit summaries (Are you ok?) and zero attempt at discussion. It should be noted that he is edit-warring to suppress well-sourced information that is "inconvenient" from a nationalist POV (collaboration of certain members of an ethnic group with the Nazis). Khirurg (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The first revert is a re-addition of the controversial irredentist term "Chameria", which was removed by multiple users recently, and thus constitutes a revert. This user is also edit-warring at Albanians (3RR breached there as well:   ) and Thesprotia, with hostile edit summaries and zero attempt at discussion. It should be noted that he is edit-warring to suppress sourced information that is "inconvenient" from a nationalist POV (collaboration of certain members of an ethnic group with the Nazis). Khirurg (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * In Albanians I don't have 4 reverts, I have 3 reverts which is the same number as Khirurg. The first edit which Khirurg claims to be a revert isn't a revert of anything . After Khirurg first reverted me, he didn't start any talkpage resolution attempt.  . In Expulsion of Cham Albanians, I first have to say that the majority of modern Greek historians don't consider the expulsion of Cham Albanians to be the result of collaboration of some of their members with the Nazis, but the result of Greek nationalist goals which preceded WWII. This is the position of most modern Greek historians on the subject, while the Greek nationalist narrative is that they were "expelled" due to Nazi collaboration. Secondly, I don't consider this edit  to be a revert but an independent edit, hence I have 3 reverts. Khirurg has 3 reverts too  . I'm not claiming that I should have reverted 3 times or that the 3RR rule means that I should do 3 reverts and I'll engage in discussing in the talkpage in both articles but I truly have to note that while Khirurg accuses me not engaging in discussion, there wasn't a single comment by Khirurg on the talkpage before he reported me. Before the report was filed nobody had written anything on the talkpage.


 * He also accuses me of hostile edit summaries and zero attempts at discussion, but he himself is guilty of this: "Nah, just the usual WP:JDL", "do not remove this" etc etc. He has also made no attempt to discuss the matter on any talk page and justify his edits, which as I said, violate WP:NPOV.


 * It should also be mentioned that Khirurg has a long history of being uncivil, condescending and hostile towards me as well as other editors over the same topics. Recently, he tried to get me banned for a bogus "tag-teaming" report which was ultimately never actioned because it was completely false. He has completely disrespected me as a fellow editor by spreading lies and false information and has tried to throw my reputation in the dirt even though I am an active volunteer on Wikipedia. He shows no interest in productive collaboration, and it's high-time he is punished for his actions.


 * Check out his most recent comment on my TP: "Your counting needs work. Anyway, that's not my problem. Reported." Real civil, Khirurg. Botushali (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You absolutely have four 4 reverts both at Expulsion of Cham Albanians and Albanians. At Expulsion of Cham Albanians, you re-added the loaded irredentist term "Chameria", even though it had been removed previously. That is a revert. At Albanians, your first revert is a removal of text that had been previously. That is also a revert. So for clear-cut reverts in two articles, and two more at another one. 10 reverts in 24 hours, yeah, that's edit-warring. Your attempts at smearing me and playing victim of "incivility" are futile, you should also read WP:NOTTHEM while you're at it. Khirurg (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Btw, this edit of mine at Expulsion of Cham Albanians is not a revert, as this is entirely new material, so I only have 2 reverts at that article. Not sure if it's a competence issue or an attempt to mislead. Khirurg (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing text isn't a revert by itself. I wasn't reverting anyone in Albanians with that edit and the first edit in Expulsion of Cham Albanians is different from just a revert. Nobody is "smearing" you but I am mentioning the big difficulty in engaging in dispute resolution when the attitude of the other side is such.Botushali (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Botushali did not violate 3RR on either article, it is true, but there's more to edit warring than that. He used his edit summaries to discuss, to the extent they could be characterized that way, since he largely indicated his intent to continue reverting. Extremely tendentious, that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Kor Ph reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Nationalistic POVPUSH in Korean historical articles and mass reversion on several articles with general blanket comments in edit summaries. Their main concern is the listing of Hangul transcription before Hanja in historical articles related to Korea. See compared to post edit:  and the subsequent reversions:, , and. More recently at Balhae they have also removed long standing dual transcriptions in modern Korean romanization and pinyin: pre- and post-. Qiushufang (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:TocMan reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both editors blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1120773769 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1120772621 by BlueboyLINY (talk) Please follow the consensus on the talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1120771490 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

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

Comments:


 * Hey folks, sorry for the trouble. I tried to get BlueboyLINY to engage with me on the talk page but it took days of him repeatedly reverting my edit before he responded, and now he continues to revert my edit without engaging further with me on the article talk page. He has reverted me more frequently and engaged in less responsive discussion than me, although I don't say that to excuse my own participation in the back and forth edits either. I hope we can reach a good and amicable solution - thanks. TocMan (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is a little late, but one might note that there is no record of discussion of this matter on Talk:Lee Zeldin. Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And User:TocMan was alleging he had gotten consensus at the talk page during the dispute when he obviously had not. (disclosure: I reverted TocMan once, because I prefer to keep the status quo on contentious issues until consensus is reached on the talk page). Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You must have missed it. It's the first section on the talk page. --TocMan (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Cortador reported by User:Denniss (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1121644356 by Denniss (talk) Leaving unsourced claims for a decade ago just stand there isn't constructive. If you want this information to be included, source it. There isn't a single reliable source for "smoke mortar" being an accurate translation, or one that was used at the time. All there is is a link to a user-genearted dictionary. The claim that this was a code had zero sources at all."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1121574751 by Denniss (talk) If you think you know German military terms, source them properly. This has been up for more of a decade unsourced."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1121301395 by Sus scrofa (talk) If you want "smoke mortar" included as a translation, provide a source that isn't a user-generated dictionary with a forum discussion that calls the translation into question, and provide a source that "Nebel" is supposed to mean "smoke" here. None of that is sourced."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nebelwerfer."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

asked him to use article talk page within the general unconstructive behaviour warning. User obviously does not know german language and german military terms otherwise he would not reinstate this dubious and obviously false translation Denniss (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also think it might be a good idea to WP:LEADCITE notwithstanding, cite that in the intro or add it somewhere in the body text with a source. Maybe he has to cover it with a hat, but he does have a bit of a point. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * He does not have a point at all because his translation is cutting the german word in two, translate these two parts and then expect to get a proper translation. And this also completely ignores the military context. Actually he would require a source for his strange translation attempt. We have (or had) similar problems at Sturmgewehr 44 with multiple users trying the same translation approach which results in Storm rifle instead of proper Assault rifle.
 * I believe the first external links actually uses smoke mortar as translation but I don't know if the text is an original reproduction from the US Intelligence report. Denniss (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User:198.70.2.200 reported by User:Throast (Result: Already partial blocked, now blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1122053298 by Throast (talk)"
 * 2)  "Not. A. Re. Dun. Dant. A. Cro. Nym"
 * 3)  "As far as letting it go, practice what you preach."
 * 4)  "DC comics is NOT a redundant acronym.  See the talk page for the explanation"
 * 5)  "Correcting an error is constructive, not disruptive.  There's even a non-example on the page itself identical in principle to the point I've made as to why DC comics is not a redundant acronym IE OPEC countries."
 * 6)  "DC comics is not a redundant acronym.  Not only is it the company name but they also produce merchandise other than comics.  "Redundant" means to be able to be removed without effecting meaning or function.  If you bought a DC action figure, you wouldn't just say you bought a "DC".  Adding "comics" is necessary for specificity"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on RAS syndrome."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Though the IP has engaged in discussion, they have been stonewalling, refusing to hear other editors' arguments, and resorted to reverting throughout. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 16:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * . I applied a partial block minutes before you posted this. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have taken something away from this, though. If I ever wondered why Wiki isn't considered a valid academic source, this experience cleared it up for me. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I made a solid case as to why it's not a redundant acronym. No one paid attention to that. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , I guess I was just in the process of filling out the Twinkle form. Sorry about that. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 16:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 198...: The talk page history says they did pay attention but were able to refute it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User198.70.2.200: reported by wolf (Result: See above)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (reverted by )
 * 2)   (reverted by me)
 * 3)  (reverted by me)
 * 4)  (reverted by C.Fred)
 * 5)  (reverted by )

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:

On reverts alone this is a straight 4RR vio (now 5RR), but this user was previously blocked by for "edit warring and personal attacks", on this same article back in April. There is also an evading issue: they're currently on a one week block, from for "edit warring and personal attacks" on another article (Mosquitofish) with another IP account. The report that led to that block is still on this page just above. They are also partially range-blocked by Paul Erik from both RAS syndrome and Mosquitofish until 2023-02-10, for "continued edit warring", as there are clear connections among all involved IP accounts, and while repeatedly edit-warring on the same content (going back more than 7 months), on these two specific and very disperate articles, and using the same style of emphatic posts combined with personal attacks, they've been quite open about being the same person. They ignored multiple++ warnings and p-blocks, aĺl in pursuit of this continued edit-war. - w o lf  16:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Duplicate report. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well... shit. I see someone beat me to it. Well, thank you to for taking action on this, two reports are better than none. Cheers -  w o lf  17:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redundancy
 * >the part of a message that can be eliminated without loss of essential information
 * There is no information in 'DC comics' that can be removed without losing meaning
 * You can't just say 'I bought some DC'.
 * DC what? They sell apparel, action figures, trading cards
 * comics is a product, and necessary for specificity 198.70.2.200 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not supposed to be editing *at all*, right now as you are currently blocked on another account. - w o lf  17:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out. I saw the pblock but not the full block. I'll be enforcing a full block on the latest IP as well. —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to match remaining duration on other IP's block. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Pktlaurence reported by User:Bailmoney27 (Result: Blocked one month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1122093165 by Purin128AL (talk)"
 * 2)  "The BTLR perhaps, but I just read the article of the beyond song, and it says its only the anthem of the protest itself, not necessary of the entirity of Hong Kong."
 * 3)  "Yhere is not yet consensus"
 * 4)  "Yeah but there is not yet consensus for adding the two new ones either, so that is definitely not the 'last good version'"
 * 5)  "Well we still gotta delete the two new ones because we dont have consensus of adding that two yet. I personally disagree to add that two."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1122084215 by Mongol (talk)"
 * 7)  "at least gotta remove the beyond one and below lion rock, the former is just a simple protest song, never held as high as an 'anthem' status, and the latter had been a popular song since the late colonial days but also never held that high of a regard either."
 * 8)  "too complicated"
 * 9)  "Fuck off you IP commie"
 * 10)  "I didn't add it, bro, but nvm, and I think we should try to protect this page from those IP commies."
 * 1)  "too complicated"
 * 2)  "Fuck off you IP commie"
 * 3)  "I didn't add it, bro, but nvm, and I think we should try to protect this page from those IP commies."
 * 1)  "Fuck off you IP commie"
 * 2)  "I didn't add it, bro, but nvm, and I think we should try to protect this page from those IP commies."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Disambiguation page references */ new section"
 * 2)  Additionally: from another user

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring */ new section"
 * 2)   "Replaced with Template:DRN-talk"

Comments:

User ignored requests to go to talk page or open DRN discussion to resolve a content dispute. User chose to state their viewpoints in the edit summaries instead, and continue to undo edits after a talk page warning. Bailmoney27 talk 20:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * He has continued reverting since you notified him of this discussion (he also is now not using edit summaries). Styx &#38; Stones (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did use edit summaries and I had been responsive to the talk page. Please dont make baselesss attacks. Now the user who added the songs agreed that the beyond song should be removed. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked one month. The user has a long history of edit-warring. If this occurs again, I recommend an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you are not ban Bailmoney 27 as he keep re-editing back to his “good version” which interput the SEO on Google, with the CCP perfer result, now highly be attended under the current Rubgy 7s event.
 * Bailmoney27 is a pro-china user, he did edit to help China hiding they are hosting centralized-camp in Xinjiang which involving genocide to the people in that region. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xinjiang&diff=prev&oldid=925434381 Cross38 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Godofwarfan69420 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: User renamed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (09:22, 13 November 2022)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (13:56, 13 November 2022)
 * 2)  (14:03, 13 November 2022)
 * 3)  (17:01, 13 November 2022)
 * 4)  (03:53, 14 November 2022)
 * 5)  (04:40, 14 November 2022)
 * 6)  (05:02, 14 November 2022)
 * 7)  (15:52, 14 November 2022)
 * 8)  (16:42, 14 November 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: See WP:IDHT behavior / minor aspersions on this user's talk page, as well as unconstructive comment on mine. Accusing another editor of lying:. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * for the numeric suffix which violates the username policy. They've been editing for only a week; I'm surprised no one else seems to have caught this. Perhaps the bots need to look at the combination of those two numbers as well as alone. He has proposed an acceptable change of username; once that change is made and he is unblocked I leave it to another admin to review this one on its own merits. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to say that the edit warring hasn't resumed since the user was unblocked. Hopefully we can chalk this up to a lesson learned and move on without sanctions. Generalrelative (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This editor is now back as after a change of name following a block for username violation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * cool Godofwarfan333 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * cheerio Godofwarfan333 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Gun Nut perk reported by User:Loafiewa (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:, User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  Diffs of the user's reverts: (T-34)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diffs of the user's reverts: (M4 Sherman)
 * 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:


 * Non-admin comment: User has now also broken 3RR at AR-15 style rifle. - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

User:WarioWorld reported by User:SomeBodyAnyBody05 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1122124285 by SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1122109862 by SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1121403094 by SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing."

Comments:

This user has reverted my edits on the pages Tommy Joseph and Cole Hamels repeatedly with no explanation. They've also ignored and removed my attempts at contacting and resolving the issue on their talk page in bad faith. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * YOU are the one who undid my edits for no reason. Then you try to flip and act like I reverted your edits. Come on. WarioWorld (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're using the tu quoque fallacy. I actually did put reasons in my initial edit summaries why I changed the images on both articles but you did not put a reason on any of your reverts you made. You also swiftly removed my warnings and attempts at resolving the conflict without having to take it to the admins.  ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude its Wikipedia. No one cares...you are taking this WAY too seriously. WarioWorld (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * However neither of you are demonstrating good dispute-resolution skills here. The above discussion, first, could have taken place on one of the talk pages, and also could have focused on the issues underlying the reverts rather than the reverts themselves. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:6081:7D00:BC8B:A0C7:6991:9228:EF82 reported by User:Ficaia (Result: /64 blocked a week for vandalism as well as edit warring)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * applied to the entire /64 range since it seems there will be no collateral damage. This was really vandalism that could have been better reported to AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

User:68.129.197.221 reported by User:Hipal (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:02, 13 October 2022 Undid revision 1115779153 by Roxy the dog (talk) this version is garbage; admins please
 * 2) 05:30, 13 October 2022
 * 3) 13:11, 18 October 2022 Undid revision 1116293311 by Drmies (talk) That's a pretty huge edit of the most accurate material in the wiki
 * 4) 15:01, 17 November 2022
 * 5) 16:12, 17 November 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:20, 18 October 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Alexander_Technique/Archive_5 and subsequent 450+ comments on the article talk page

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

Comments:

And these sequences of reverts are at least a month apart. Might be better discussed at AN/I if it recurs. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

User:DontSpreadLiesTellTheTruth reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal Life */ Stick to facts not tabloid style writing."
 * 2)  "/* Marriage to Tammy Wynette */  stop the tabloid style writing"
 * 3)  "/* Marriage to Tammy Wynette */ Mr. Richey's name is not spelled correctly.  The sources used here are not from credible sources and are nothing more than tabloid.  Get facts, not tabloids."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1122598781 by Czello (talk) you are obviously biased towards this music industry leader.  The changes made were to take out tabloid reporting which does not serve the public on this forum."
 * 5)  "/* Personal Life */ these edits were made because they were not representative of the true person of George Richey.  The person who added these chose sensationalize rumors and not information based on facts, but on tabloid style reporting does not belong here and that's why it was removed.  Mr. Richey was a well respected producer, writer, businessman and leader in Nashville and any rumor of him does not belong here.  We stick to facts, not gossip based reports."
 * 1)  "/* Personal Life */ these edits were made because they were not representative of the true person of George Richey.  The person who added these chose sensationalize rumors and not information based on facts, but on tabloid style reporting does not belong here and that's why it was removed.  Mr. Richey was a well respected producer, writer, businessman and leader in Nashville and any rumor of him does not belong here.  We stick to facts, not gossip based reports."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I also strongly suspect this user is engaging in block evasion; they are an SPA making the same edits as and. Seems to be a clear WP:QUACK case to me. — Czello 13:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Seconding the QUACKING. Would probably be easier to block as a DUCK of those two. There might be some BLP issues here, there are some questionable sources on that page. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * sources are fine. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * for sockpuppetry by . DatGuyTalkContribs 13:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

User:62.201.240.158 reported by User:Paradise Chronicle (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1122636628 by Saintstephen000 (talk) These poor people deserved better"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1122631757 by Jim Michael 2 (talk) I'm just trying to respect these people you're the one being rude towards them"
 * 3)  "/* Victims */ hoping people understand why these people should have their names written here"
 * 4)  "/* Victims */ Don't you think these poor people who had their lives cut short by a terrorist attack deserve to be at least remembered in the victims list for the attack"
 * 5)  "/* Victims */ why is it that you shouldn't have the names of the victims?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Your edit to 2022 Istanbul bombing */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is an IP and somehow also has a point, but they seem a bit stubborn. They want to include the personal names of the victims which apparently goes against WP:BLPPRIVACY Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if the BLPPRIVACY applies here, but it seems they passed way beyond the 3rr rule as I have not listed all the reverts of the day. I guess they'll revert and get reverted until some admin says they are right or they are wrong. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The general consensus has been that lists of victims of disasters or terror attacks are a matter of article-by-article consensus among editors. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I can follow your rationale. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month due to IP edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Mandarax reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: See History

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) Hopefully there won't a be a 4th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

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

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

Comments:

Well-meaning but fairly rude editor who refuses to stop misapplying misunderstood policies or take it to the talk page. Kindly just get them to knock it off. If everyone has agreed to humour the [|EB]'s ligature now, that's fine by me although the other way isn't wrong. The needless piping and completely unnecessary and wrong [sic] is and needs to stop being readded to the page. Historical spellings aren't typos that need pointing out, except in the code to avoid silly edit warring like this. — Llywelyn II   01:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke? Virtually everything LlywelynII has done in this matter has been wrong. For example, in this report:
 * The first diff of a supposed revert could not in any sense be considered a revert. I merely corrected a spelling error, with a note that if it wasn't an error in transcribing from the offline source, it should be piped to the spelling used in the quote, with an added [sic].
 * The second and third diffs are the only things they actually got right. These were reversions – the only two reversions I made to the page. In the first, I including an edit summary quoting the policy I was following, and in the second, I left an extremely detailed edit summary explaining the relevant policies which I determined they had not understood after the previous time.
 * The funniest one of them all: the diff of the supposed warning they gave me is actually the notice that they had dragged me here to AN/EW.
 * The supposed attempt to resolve it on the article talk page is a condescending and misguided note which I never saw until now, because they didn't notify me in any way. (I assumed that my exceedingly detailed edit summary would satisfy them, and I had no reason to go look at the talk page.) They talked about me, but never mentioned/pinged me, which is rude; it almost looks like they went out of their way not to mention me. So, yeah, that's why I didn't respond there.


 * They tell me to "Go reread the cited policy at WP:NOTBROKEN". My advice to them: "Go reread the cited policy at WP:NOTBROKEN". You can't just pick and choose which portions of it you want to follow. Specifically, under "Good reasons to bypass redirects include:", it says "Don't link to a misspelled redirect." This is the third time I've had to quote this to the user who apparently refuses to listen. This has absolutely nothing to do with maintaining the spelling in the quote; I piped it to that spelling. This is solely about the MoS prohibition against linking to a misspelled redirect. Why is it so important to have it their way when visually it looks the same to readers (until they click on it and see the notice that they've been redirected from that misspelling), but the way I did it is policy-compliant and theirs isn't?


 * They also misunderstand or misinterpret or just ignore the policy at MOS:LIGATURE. For the second time, I'll direct them to what it says: "Ligatures should be used in languages in which they are standard ... but not in English (encyclopedia or encyclopaedia, not encyclopædia), except in proper names..." I guess they saw the (lower-case "e") encyclopedia example and refused to see the part "except in proper names". The proper name "Encyclopædia Britannica" is incontrovertibly correct according to this policy.


 * It's also funny that they refer to me as "fairly rude". I was nothing but professional, while they've referred to me as "confused" and "WP:POINT-challenged".


 * So, to summarize, I did two policy-based reverts with detailed edit summaries, and they did three reverts (1, mixed with other edits, 2, 3) against policy.    M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M    03:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It takes two to edit war and 3RR has not been violated. I don't see any evidence of rude. Please consider the points raised in the reply by Mandarax above and adjust the article talk page section accordingly (either agree or raise policy-based reasons for why they are not applicable). Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Oluclen reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "standard template restored again — it means that this page should use the same template used by all the similar national teams pages on Wikipedia"
 * 2)  "standard template restored again — it means that this page should use the same template used by all the similar national teams pages on Wikipedia"
 * 3)  "/* Recent call-ups */  standard template restored — it means the same used by all the similar national teams pages on Wikipedia"
 * 1)  "/* Recent call-ups */  standard template restored — it means the same used by all the similar national teams pages on Wikipedia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Oluclen and sort templates */"

Comments:

User keeps removing useful sort templates, claiming it is "not standard" Spike &#39;em (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: see previous ANI discussion related to the same user. <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#27B382">1499</b> 18:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No 3RR violation, but similar enough to the editing that led to the earlier block. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:240:C680:3A40:5DBA:D8C0:8690:12AC reported by User:Styx & Stones (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Origins */.Other than being derived from Muhammed, it has existed for centuries as a native Han Chinese surname.There is a grammar problem with this sentence"
 * 2)  "/* Origins */This is the origin of the surname Ma"
 * 3)  "/* Origins */why are you doing？This Ma is a traditional Chinese surname, and you have written too many descriptions of Muslims to imply that people associate this name with Islam."
 * 4)  "/* Origins */The Muslim role of this surname is overemphasized. The name is derived from a Chinese place name, not an Arabic personal name."
 * 5)  "/* Origins */"
 * 6)  "/* Origins */"
 * 7)  "/* Origins */Too much emphasis is placed on the Muslim role of this surname. The name originated from Chinese place names, not Arabic personal names."
 * 8)  "/* Origins */"
 * 9)  "/* Origins */"
 * 10)  "/* Origins */"
 * 11)  "/* Origins */"
 * 1)  "/* Origins */"
 * 2)  "/* Origins */"
 * 3)  "/* Origins */"
 * 1)  "/* Origins */"
 * 2)  "/* Origins */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has far exceeded the 3RR. Styx &#38; Stones (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48h for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2a00:d3e0:8:5a00:c979:6725:e580:1c51 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  I have provided evidence: stop reverting to a less-accurate page
 * 2)  I have provided a dictionary definition of the word 'Scottish'. It does not include Africa or Africans.
 * 3)  Undid revision 1122894337 by LilianaUwU (talk)
 * 4)  Undid revision 1122892555 by Adakiko (talk)
 * 5)  Not of Scots ethnicity, no evidence he is a British passport holder either. Born in Africa to African parents.
 * 6)  Undid revision 1122870733 by Materialscientist (talk)
 * 7)  (three edits, no ES)

For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary Warn the user if you have not already done so. }}Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * Adakiko (ew notice)

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] Comments:
 * Adakiko edit(An3-notice)

Anon was initially changing "Scottish" to "British". Later simply removed "Scottish". Initially, there was only a source by the BBC referring to Ncuti Gatwa as "Rwandan-Scottish". I added a second source by The National (Scotland) also stating "Rwandan-Scottish". Adakiko (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * add The National (Scotland) ref supporting Gatwa as "Scottish"
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Blueginger2 reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1122896834 by Cononsense (talk) vandalism, removing content.- there are five (5) sources. i added extra one. and even before Rsk6400 claimed they are good sources."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1122892493 by Prolog (talk) there are 4 sources, which are satisfying according to Rsk6400. They include Youtube, Telegraph and Liveuamap"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1122884668 by Rsk6400 (talk) vandalism again deleting contetnt see see Talk:Odesa#Recentism"
 * 4)  "/* Independence of Ukraine */ rev removing content vandalism"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1122768342 by Rsk6400 (talk) there is explanation, reason are blackouts, there are three (3) sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 
 * 1)  Not done, but there were two warnings given on the user's talk page, one by me for not using edit summary, the other one by a third user for sourcing problems:

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

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Hemiauchenia reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:27, 20 November 2022‎ Undid revision 1122918100 (self-reverted)
 * 2) 16:38, 20 November 2022‎ (Tag: Manual revert)
 * 3) 16:45, 20 November 2022 Undid revision 1122920192
 * 4) 17:00, 20 November 2022‎ Undid revision 1122922028 (self-reverted)

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:


 * Ignoring the issue of the number of reverts, I think some mention of the Powell (2022) paper is acceptable (perhaps something like "In 2022, J.L. Powell argued that the rejection of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis was not justified") but I agree with Hemiauchenia that it's too early to know whether this primary source will be accepted by the scientific community, so it should not be given greater prominence. We need to see some citations to the paper first. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been trying to improve the wording to that end, but Hemiauchenia keeps removing the paragraph rather than respond to what is still lacking in my presentation. Skyerise (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your edits did literally nothing to fix the problems with the sentence. It still presented Powell's conclusions in Wikivoice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Skyerise has engaged in personal attacks against users who have disagreed with them, calling them the "pseudoscience crew" . I've undone my 16:27 revert to satisfy the 3RR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And you use profanity in your edit summaries: . Skyerise (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So what? In context, the swearing is an expression of exasperation, and obviously not intended as a personal attack. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Still WP:UNCIVIL. And I said anti-pseudoscience crew, which includes me. Descriptive, not pejorative. Skyerise (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that swearing in exhasperation is not an actionable offense. You also know that you are being disingenuous when you claim that the supposed "anti-pseudoscience crew" includes you, when that is totally contradicted by your other comments in the BLP thread. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? I've repeatedly said I am not arguing for the removal of the labels, rather I object only to an overly strident tone in certain articles. For example, having to have the word as early as possible in the first sentence of an article, rather than in the first paragraph with a better and more natural flow; or in headings, especially where other researchers who are not labeled pseudoscientists are also mentioned in the same section. I guess you're not really reading or comprehending what I've actually been saying. Skyerise (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hemiauchenia appears to have undone his first revert of the day, rather than the last one. So I'm leaving the report in place. If it were the last one, I'd withdraw it, but this doesn't restore the paragraph I was working on, and which was no longer in Wikivoice, despite claims to the contrary (must have reverted without actually looking first). Skyerise (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The correct revert has now been self-reverted so I withdraw this report. Skyerise (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Davoodianiman reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1122620183 by Semsûrî (talk)"
 * 2)  "Added a photo of women's life freedom in London and Persian pronunciation of Women, life, freedom."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1122277493 by Semsûrî (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1122277493 by Semsûrî (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Woman, Life, Freedom."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has been warned on talkpage twice for disruptive editing before they breached the three-revert rule. I only warned them of the three-revert rule after their fourth revert, but doubt it would have made any different. Semsûrî (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You are removing and reverting anything that is not Kurdish. All the information I provided was accurate and there is no disruptive editing. Davoodianiman (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all you should read ASPERSIONS. Secondly, you have not once countered my reasoning for the removal and breaching 3RR is disruption in itself. Semsûrî (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * per above. I will add that I find this apparent single-purpose account's history interesting: it was created over 4 years ago but only started editing three days ago. Someone may find this even more interesting, and if so it should be looked into. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: The editor returned after the block and this time I blocked them indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Iathien reported by User:Kitchen Knife (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:


 * by Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

User:198.70.2.200 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Despite only just coming off a block for edit warring this IP insists on starting another edit war. User has been reverted several times with advice to gain consensus via talk page but has ignored. <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 19:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The last time this was an issue, the other reverter admitted the audio was muffled. It's fair to say it was incoherent. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There WAS a consensus. It was agreed that the audio is muffled, ergo incoherent. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User:GhostlyOperative reported by User:BappleBusiness (Result: No 3RR violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (second revert of this text)
 * 1)  (second revert of this text)
 * 1)  (second revert of this text)

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 previously uninvolved editor (in this particular conflict, not the article in general) who tried to calm the emerging edit war between GhostlyOperative and Wikiboo02 through starting a talk page discussion, returning the Date and age range section to the WP:STATUSQUO version. Since a discussion began and these users were notified, I warned that any further edits to the section by the involved parties would result in a report. GhostlyOperative reverted my edit returning the section to the WP:STATUSQUO despite being aware of this warning. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 03:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23, the 3-revert rule is not the definition of edit warring; edit warring does not necessarily require the 3-revert-rule to be broken. Through continuing to revert after I temporarily returned the section to the WP:STATUSQUO while editors engage in discussion, GhostlyOperative has shown that they are unwilling to cooperate in discussion and consensus-making. ~BappleBusiness[talk] 21:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Egghead06 reported by User:Boynamedsue (Result: Partial blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1123023282&oldid=1123021817
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1123021581&oldid=1123019148
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1123000420&oldid=1122964628

With a history of reversions on the same page to get preferred information into the text where no consensus exist for it on the talkpage.


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1117567479&oldid=1117552880
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1117509187&oldid=1117465116

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWest_Ham_United_F.C.&type=revision&diff=1123028726&oldid=1123024323 (also, see discussion page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Ham_United_F.C.)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEgghead06&type=revision&diff=1123030464&oldid=1123024649

Comments:

While only 3R occurred over 24 hours, the user has repeatedly used reversion as a tactic on this page to ensure that weakly-sourced information remains in the text without WP:OR tags. This constitutes a pattern of edit-warring as a deliberate tactic to avoid the need to establish consensus rather than a loss of control or an oversight. Boynamedsue (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

There were three editors mainly involved in this discussion. Two in favour of adding the information with sources that verified it. The other editor even supplied the sources. One editor only failed to engaged in WP:BRD and constantly reverted the attempts of the other two editors. If any consensus was reached it was to add the sourced info by a majority of two to one. The one being the editor who has raised this "complaint". If an editor won’t follow WP:BRD, then, like this, they lay all the preparations for an edit war, something I tried to avoid.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On the discussion page there was no consensus for inclusion of the nicknames, 4 users were against, 2 in favour. The discussions were ongoing when you made a bold edit, which another user supported in principle but not in form. There was no consensus for any of the 5 reverts linked above. And even if there were consensus (there wasn't), it does not give you licence to edit war.


 * By the way "constantly reverted" is a serious mischaracterisation, as it refers to a single revert on my part, in which no text the other user wishes to see included was reverted. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * We as editors had long since moved on from adding nicknames and this editor knows it. A method was supplied, not by me, whereby we could add additional names by which the club was called, specifically not nicknames. The other editor even supplied references. I made the additions based on this suggestion. Thus in this part of the discussion, two in favour, one against. The one against fails to discuss and reverts and claims WP:OR which it isn’t. The discussion should have continued but the complainant wanted their way and reverted.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From my assessment of the situation, Egghead's the only one really in favor, and Sue and Koncorde are both against the version that Egghead made. Koncorde's diff: Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, according to BRD, Egghead made the BOLD edit, and Sue appropriately reverted it and discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You mis-read. Koncorde provided the references to support the existence of these sobriquets!!!--Egghead06 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet you haven't included any of them yet! Koncorde basically said that they support adding sobriquets but disagree with the way you added them as it is currently OR. Sue disagrees with the current state of the sobriquets section as they are currently OR. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve added all of the first set of Koncorde’s supplied references!?--Egghead06 (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Verily I can say to you that there were three times that mister egghead reverted, so the good sir has been fighting a battle in this edit war. Ghost of Kiev  (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See the diff external link [17] Aaron Liu (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is not the facts of the argument, it is that Egghead06 thinks that edit-warring is acceptable if you are right (and who edits thinking they are wrong?). They show no awareness that what they are doing might not be correct, and have so far met with success in using reverts to ensure their preferred text remains in the article. If no action is taken now, this will continue. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that Sue couldn’t be bothered to wait for the discussion to come to a civil and orderly end. They decided they were in charge and ended it by removing the content they didn’t like. Isn’t that just the action of someone not prepared to follow the recognised route to differences of opinion. If discussion is ended unilaterally just what are you supposed to do? --Egghead06 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Errrm, it was me who was adding tags, and you who was deleting them? Your text was still in the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * from the article. Lots of discussion both on the talk page (where it should be) and here (where it ought not to be) but I see no consensus that "Cockney Boys" is a nickname or used in any way to refer to the club outside that chant. So until there is a good source for this, it does not go in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case, could you possibly delete the "sobriquets" section so that we can discuss the best way to include the information, if at all? Don't want to do it myself as I am an involved party. Alternatively I could restore the text with OR tags?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to comment it out? Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done that now. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So we have a football report about West Ham that refers to them as the Cockney Boys and that's not good enough. OK…………--Egghead06 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, others believe this, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe a bit late as I only got home from work half an hour ago, but the Cockney Boys? Really, how is that a common nickname? Like many football clubs, the football club has one nickname and the fans often have a nickname, the Cockney Boys is a nickname that use to refer to the club fans and not the club. Cockney is the language derived in the east end by the people that lived in that part of London. So don't trust the sources, there are a lot of missed communication. As for PeeJay being banned? That's just over-the-top and completely unnecessary. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is PeeJay? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Doh!, I meant to say Egghead, not PeeJay! Silly me. Govvy (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * He is not "banned" ... I have only blocked them from the article for a week since the root of the problem was that they kept insisting on adding it despite a lack of consensus on the talk page. What would have been your preferred resolution? Speaking (or, really, typing) of which, these discussions of the validity of "Cockney Boys" as a nickname should really be held on ... the ... talk ... page. Not here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Akalanka820 reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: User warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1123049185 by LukeEmily (talk) Onus to seek it's inclusion is on those who want to add it in case of dispute. Multiple editors have now pointed it out, even you agreed on t/p that experienced editor raises questions then you would not push. Don't engage in WP:BFN"
 * 2)  "Removing it after recent comments and observation by a very experienced editor  on WP:INB on Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics   on this subject, it definitely needs extra discussion"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1122005342 by LukeEmily (talk): Restoring it to last clean version, this addition thing needs further especially Fowler&fowler comments on WP:INB here on Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Ananya_Vajpeyi_-_Sanskrit_Scholar_and_History_Professor_in_peer_reviewed_paper_-_Oxford_University_press_:Traditions_in_motion:Religion_and_Society_in_History "
 * 4)  "Restored revision 1122353597 by LukeEmily (talk): My queries were not based on WP:RS, but there are contradictory lines wrt to it in other references,. it is a matter of WP:Tertiary  as Lindsay Harlan's, AR Desai others say different."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please see the talk page and WT:INB.

Comments:

A partial-block is probably necessary. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Admin, the matter is being discussed WP:INB. I didn't crossed 3RR, the third one, I myself reverted it. It can't be counted on as breach of 3RR, as one was self revert here -[] of this diff-[], I myself reverted my own edit, and that is being counted as fourth which is definitely not correct. I took the step after recent observation on this topic by on WP:INB here-[] . On the other hand, it is bit surprising rather than seek consensus on talk page to include a controversial content, the attempt is being made to just push their way. I just see an attempt to get me banned.Akalanka820 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3RR is not an entitlement. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear, I haven't reverted after you reverted my last edit. I have literally no interest in edit warring on the subject or on that page, one of the revert happened by mistake, which I had to do a self revert. It is fairly clear that this isn't breach of the rule. Though I agree any kind of edit warring is not good. I took the step after some observations by another editor. Why not restore it before the recently added content? A consensus can be reached out for the content inclusion after discussion. Akalanka820 (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize, for that two reverts, I think I should have waited a bit more. I did understood this point after the revert by TB of my edit. I didn't pushed post their revert. I again repeat the intention behind it was not to push my perspective as such. I just felt that we can have discussion on the topic and that is why I went ahead to restore the page before the content in question. Thank you Akalanka820 (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I think should apologize for edit-warring, but as their motive is not entirely POV, i.e. has some basis in due weight, this thread should be closed with a warning, but without penalties (in the form of blocks).  It is not as if Akalanka820 was edit-warring incessantly or prodigiously in lieu of discussion, for they were also discussing the issues in two venues: the article's talk page and WT:INDIA.
 * comment Their pattern of edits across Rajput articles is certainly POV pushing. I will say more tomorrow. Requesting admins to not close it yet. I agree with TB about the partial block.LukeEmily (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But from my limited knowledge (all garnered yesterday) the same could be said about you, LukeEmily. You have attempted to promote a synthesized varna-oriented POV into the article.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My Dear, I take offence to that statement and feel I should be allowed to defend myself. The same can be said about all editors who added anything related to varna on any caste page including Sitush, is that not so? - Sitush has added Varna to most caste articles. For Rajput, consensus was reached for those edits after long discussions(that also involved sanjaypal below) in 2020, as well as several senior editors who were uninvolved including admins and we moved on. It was not as if the talk page was silent or that no case was made. Sources were discussed. There were discussions with Sitush too. Do you think I would have added the flattering section on "Religion and Rajput women"(now removed) or "Rajput hospitality" if there was any bias? I have never even been to Bihar/UP/Rajasthan etc - not even seen the Tajmahal in real life. Rajputisation - formation of Rajput community - itself involves shudra to kshatriya transition by starting rituals of twice borns. The very fact that  "rajputisation" article was missing from wikipedia or the Rajput page shows how much unbalanced the article was. Should we whitewash all the suffering that innocent Rajput females including infants went through so that the tribe could get varna mobility? The disruprive POV I am talking about by Akalanka820 is removal of sourced content after it has been discussed and a consensus reached as per WP:BRD to add it to the page.  You are a very senior editor like Sitush and I respect your opinion highly. If you feel I should not edit Rajput anymore, I will obey you - no questions asked. I am better off writing nothing than writing dishonest whitewashed content that is going to hurt my conscience. Actually, I am mostly done editing the Rajput related pages unless there is disruption. My next project on wikipedia is based on Dr.Madhav Deshpande's paper(you may know him if you knew the faculty at umich (Univ of Michigan)) - it has nothing to do with Rajputs and is based on a Purana (so I am not expecting edit wars) but will will run it by you before I start anything. After that I will move away from caste/religion based articles and focus on adding retired notables from mostly US  universities. As a  good faith gesture, I will edit the origin to remove multiple mentions of shudra without changing any meaning. I dont think there is any point repeating shudra many times in a single section, but it can happen inadvertently. If it were up to me I would remove shudra completely from all pages and replace it by something non-provocative like "not following twice-born rituals". AFAIK, no community other than Marathas (in the recent court case for reservation), Kunbis or Dalits and few other backward farming castes openly self-identify as Shudra. I apologize in advance for the long text.LukeEmily (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * comment seems like no issue to me. I have seen editing pattern of user reported, the reporter and commentor above me. I think it is more about ones view against other. I have participated in many of the talk pages discussions with them. From one's point of view the other is pov pusher specially when they themselves indulged in what the next person can call pov pushing. I see nothing solid, blocking someone for such a issue will make way easy for pov pushing by the ones who accuse Akalanka of the same. Sajaypal007 (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As per above discussion. Looking over the article history, it's really hard to say one editor is primarily to blame ... I could just as easily imagine TB being the subject of this report. Continue the discussion at INB, please, and I will warn Akalanka about keeping this zeal in check. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Vintage 1234 reported by User:Sutyarashi (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

As a side note, the User:Vintage 1234 threatened me that he has many accounts to do the same with me, a clear indication of sockpuppetry.Sutyarashi (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely purely for the sockpuppetry threat. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From a quick check is them as well, so the socking is ✅. They're editing from multiple hugely dynamic ranges, so I imagine there will be (and have been) more accounts.--  Ponyo bons mots 21:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

User:SpyridisioAnnis reported by User:Bonadea (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1123375598 by Bonadea (talk) Please stop your disruptive editing"
 * 2)  "Reverted good faith edits by Bonadea (talk): This is a bad wikilink"
 * 3)  "Reverted good faith edits by Chipmunkdavis (talk): That's not the way this links by."
 * 4)  "Reverted good faith edits by Chipmunkdavis (talk): Please note, there should be no link."
 * 5)  "Reverted good faith edits by WildStar (talk): This might go wrong in the article after your edit so I reverted it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Article links */ stop edit warring"
 * 2)   "/* Article links */ please self-revert"
 * 3)   "/* Article links */ re"
 * 4)   "/* Article links */ re"

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

Comments:

I bent over backwards to avoid reporting SpyridiosioAnnis, asking them repeatedly to self-revert their 4RR edit, and to explain why they kept making it, but when it was obvious that they wouldn't, I restored the wikilink they had been edit warring over. Sadly, 5RR followed. bonadea contributions talk 11:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , clear reverts at 11:52, 10:47, 10:30, 10:16, 09:55. Warned and has actually warned others, so clearly aware of the problem. There probably needs to be a deeper discussion of this editor's overall pattern of edits - many warnings on that page and some seriously deficient responses. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 reported by User:Darknipples (Result: Semi & blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:My first time here - I notified the user of the 3RR and went to their user page
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Saying 'the FBI applied for a false warrant' in Wikipedia's voice is over the top. Do you think the FBI went to the court and said 'Please give us a false warrant..'? If you think the FBI misbehaved, you should find reliable sources. Another admin has already revdelled some copyright violations by this IP editor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Two of four FISA warrants against Carter Page declared invalid | CNN Politics 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/fisa-carter-page-warrants/index.html 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * FISA Court Ruling & Disposition Here:
 * fisc.declassifed.order.16-1182.17-52.17-375.17-679..200123.pdf (cnn.com) 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/01/23/fisc.declassifed.order.16-1182.17-52.17-375.17-679..200123.pdf 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The report also accused a low-level FBI lawyer of doctoring a document used to build the agency’s application for FISA surveillance on Page. The lawyer is now under criminal investigation, and has since resigned from the FBI. 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also you can't make a "copyright" claim or "IP" claim to actual court case documents!
 * See, e.g., Indictment, United States v. Michael A. Sussmann, Crim. Case No. 21–582 (CRC) (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 2021), ECF No. 1, available at https://www​.courtlistener.com/docket/60390583/1/united-states-v-sussmann/ [hereinafter Sussmann Indictment]; The Government’s Motions in Limine, United States v. Michael A. Sussmann, Crim. Case No. 21–582 (CRC) (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2022), ECF No. 61, at 13-32 (emphasis added) (seeking the admission of certain communications because they were “made in furtherance of a joint venture between and among the defendant, Tech Executive-1, and representatives or agents of the Clinton Campaign”), available at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.235638/gov.uscourts.dcd​.235638.61.0_7.pdf. 2601:240:4A80:F200:6FCB:3775:283A:3496 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We already document problems with the FBI's actions (none of which rise to the levels you allege), but you are pushing an extreme right-wing conspiracy theory with false claims, some of which are extreme violations of our BLP policy and must be deleted. You can't push your extremist views without expecting to get pushback from other editors. You must use the article's talk page to discuss such controversial edits. Attempting to completely turn the narrative of events, as reported by reliable sources, on its head to make Trump's 'big lie' and his cooperation with Russia's election interference seem like a good thing won't work here. This is not your private website. Your forbidden advocacy of fringe theories should get you blocked. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which it has, for 1 week. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

User:CameUpStarvin' reported by User:GreenCows (Result: Blocked one week)
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:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Comments: They have already been warned multiple times on their talk page today and they even started to engage in a discussion on the talk page. However, they reverted again two minutes after after their last comment on the talk page without waiting for a reply. GreenCows (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A reply was not necessary since the individual who'd reverted my contribution multiple times hadn't bothered reading the article in question anyway. My latest comment on the talk page was an illustration of this - I've offered him the opportunity to refute my statement, suggesting if his were valid then a reversion is permissible but also that he should explain his grounds. CameUpStarvin&#39; (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

User:5.199.171.245 reported by User:Daniel Quinlan (Result: Blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1123504433 by Kansas Bear (talk) Unexplained removal of sourced content"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1123502630 by Kansas Bear (talk) Unexplained removal of sourced content"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1123469567 by REKKWINT (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1123469433 by REKKWINT (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1123362157 by Marleeashton (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1123362157 by Marleeashton (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm reporting this here after declining a semi-protection request for Visigothic Kingdom. While semi-protection seemed like overkill, it does look like 4 reversions from this IP address editor. It looks like they received one warning earlier and a stronger warning about edit warring at nearly the same time as their last edit. I think the page may also need to be restored to an earlier version. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just checked on the status of the report and noticed the IP address editor did 2 additional reversions bringing the total to 6. They also started adding personal attacks to their edit summaries so I have blocked the IP for 72 hours, left the user a block notice, and I rolled back the edit that included the personal attack in the summary. I only reported it here because I was headed out and I wasn't sure whether the 4 reversions warranted additional action given the chronology prior to subsequent escalation. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Wikifiveoh reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1123558543 by Mike Christie (talk)You deleted the section originally without consensus!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1123553924 by Chaheel Riens (talk) Please see Talk. I would ask Chaheel Riens to add to Wikipedia rather than take away from it."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1123221095 by Mike Christie (talk)Here I am reinstating this section in order to edit ti."
 * 4)  "/* Etymological note */ Section retained but reduced. Please continue discussion on talk page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1123055795 by Chaheel Riens (talk) You have been seeking to delete a section in its entirety that several contributors have put much effort into compiling. You say it is 'unsourced', but common usage of a term is not easyily sourced - it's just out there. You should not delete this entire section, but rather work with it to improve it."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1123055795 by Chaheel Riens (talk) You have been seeking to delete a section in its entirety that several contributors have put much effort into compiling. You say it is 'unsourced', but common usage of a term is not easyily sourced - it's just out there. You should not delete this entire section, but rather work with it to improve it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Duesenberg

Comments:

Editor is continually trying to force their preferred versions, which originally included copyvio and now they've removed sources is a weasel-word section going against the source they removed. User has been warned on the talk page about their behaviour and the likely results. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * . Not a violation of 3RR, since the four edits listed were in a timespan of more than 24 hours, but disruptive edit warring just the same. However, the user may not be aware of the rules against edit warring, since they have not been warned about it. Please post a warning next time a situation like this comes up, . Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Godofwarfan333 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid blatantly unconstructive revision 1123588316 by Spike 'em (talk). stop spamming the revert button. when I'm reverting it, it's going back to what it was before you two decided to make a near unilateral change without anyone's consensus, ignoring the norms of EVERY SINGLE WORLD CUP ARTICLE BEFORE THIS."
 * 2)  "three strikes and you're out. and guess what, all three strikes have been struck,"
 * 3)  "this standard won't be changed until you get consensus in the talk page. and you think you're unimpeachable, when you're actually worsening the quality of the article. primary information required for an everyman is that it is an association football tournament. stop changing it back or you'll be reported for edit warring"
 * 4)  "looking at the standard used across all the prior ledes for the World Cup, it's the more sensible course of action to keep it as it was."
 * 1)  "three strikes and you're out. and guess what, all three strikes have been struck,"
 * 2)  "this standard won't be changed until you get consensus in the talk page. and you think you're unimpeachable, when you're actually worsening the quality of the article. primary information required for an everyman is that it is an association football tournament. stop changing it back or you'll be reported for edit warring"
 * 3)  "looking at the standard used across all the prior ledes for the World Cup, it's the more sensible course of action to keep it as it was."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor is edit-warring on multiple sections of the article with various other editors. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also seems to be trying to game the system by warning others that they are at 3 reverts, but making far more themselves. They seem to know quote a lot about this for a new editor. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. you also reverted three times, which while not breaking the 3RR, means you were clearly edit warring too. Both of you, please work through differences on the talk page rather than continually reverting.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

User:LilySophie reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Blocked 72 hours Indef block)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "1. No consensus against inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes critics score was achieved on WP:TALK 2. Wikipedia-wide consensus is for the inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes critics score, and even if consensus had been established against it on WP:TALK, it would not overrule Wikipedia-wide consensus, as per WP:CONLEVEL. Please refrain from reverting again. - Undid revision 1123436409 by Sideswipe9th (talk)"
 * 2)  "Wikipedia-wide consensus for the inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes critics score, as pointed out on WP:TALK - If you disagree, it is on you to establish consensus against the currently standing site-wide consensus - Undid revision 1123419216 by Newimpartial (talk)"
 * 3)  "False. There is consensus that inclusion of Rotten Tomatoes' critics score is correct, only that user scores are not reliable and permitted.  - Undid revision 1123281986 by Newimpartial (talk)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning::
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on PinkNews."
 * 2)  "Warning: Edit warring on What Is a Woman?."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F
 * Talk:PinkNews

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

Comments:

Note, LilySophie is edit warring against consensus at two articles presently. What Is a Woman? and PinkNews. At What Is a Woman? LilySophie has made four reverts in the last 24 hours. At PinkNews LilySophie has made three reverts in the last 24 hours: An attempt to discuss the PinkNews edit war, along with two requests for a self-revert has been made at Talk:PinkNews. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * by LilySophie reinstates content that was by  with the edit summary rm Libel claims section per talk. No consensus this section is WP:DUE. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VNOT
 * content after being removed by Newimpartial
 * content again after being removed by me
 * I welcome input from and discussion by other editors. Clearly no progress is being made with either User:Sideswipe9th or User:Newimpartial, who have now also begun to collectively revert pages in an effort to circumvent WP:3RR. My reasoning for each edit has been explained in detail in each edit summary, as well as on the talk page of the PinkNews article. Note that unlike what User:Sideswipe9th has claimed, no attempt to explain their reverts or those by User:Newimpartial was made on the talk page of the What is a woman article. See: Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F. - LilySophie (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: My reasoning for each edit has been explained in detail in each edit summary - providing good edit summaries is not an exception to WP:3RR. You also are not speaking accurately about my own edit summaries - I have pointed to WP:ONUS, and to Talk page discussion that has not favored inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also note, while typing up and fixing this report after my first Twinkle submission broke, LilySophie has issued on my user talk page, claiming I'm edit warring against consensus, despite my making only a single revert on each page to restore the consensus version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Ponyo bons mots 20:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that I've extended the block to an indef due to continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour while blocked.-- Ponyo bons mots 16:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

User:73.92.67.207 reported by User:David Eppstein (Result: Blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:73.92.67.207

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:73.92.67.207

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:73.92.67.207

Comments:

I now realize I should have looked at the contribs and just blocked them myself, but instead I became involved by undoing their edits and triggering yet another revert. Oops. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries. This IP has a history. Blocked 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

User:blindlynx reported by User:wuerzele (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Wuerzele (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, as far as I can tell, you have listed three reverts over three days by two different users (blindlynx and Shibbolethink). I don't see how this can be interpreted as any sort of violation of WP:3RR, while it seems to me that you are editing against consensus.  I would humbly suggest withdrawing this report.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * At best the report by Wuerzele is a mistake. No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)