Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive462

User:Giray Altay reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Refer to AN/I or some other forum)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

To be fair, it was me who first reverted their edit, but they continued PoV pushing even after an other editor intervened. Warring mentality is clearly not alien to them as one can experience here. I think this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case:,. I ping to share their experiences with the reported editor. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Erminwin's here. I frankly admitted that I made a mistaken edit on the Attilid dynasty, when User:Giray Altay pointed that out, I corrected (reasons here, my own quote, then still unedited: "I was mistaken, I do not want to make the same mistakje again."). However, User:Giray Altay also accidentally admitted to POV-pushing here; their own quote: "I simply added the bit about the numerous children because I wanted to remind the reader that Attila had many children and thus the existence of a Prince Csaba (another son) is quite plausible in this sense." yet they did not acknowledge that what they did was POV-pushing (I can't read their minds; so I hesitate to attribute malice) (1, 2 ). There are: (1) this instant of User:Giray Altay, in [|my talk page], telling User:Borsoka: "you should be wiser and mind your own business." which, to me at least, borderlined WP:BULLY, to which User:Giray Altay retorted (2) "only if you have a prejudice against me can you read it as bullying"; as well as this (3) "You don't need to tag team against me. I will myself leave as soon as the dispute at Samuel Aba is over. This way justice will be done at that page, Borsoka will not get what they want, and because of the two of you Wikipedia will lose my contributions".Erminwin (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring their lengthy threads and PoV-pushing, my principal problem is that Giray Altay seems to be unable to verify their claims. They have been continuously citing the same sources referring to hundreds of pages from a lengthy anthology of old Hungarian essays of various topics, or to a German historical journal containing dozens of individual articles unrelated to the topic. In some cases, it is quite obvious that the cited source does not verify their claim: for instance, he wants to verify a statement about a specific chronicle (Simon of Kéza's late 13th-century Gesta Hungarorum) with a reference to a statement about Hungarian chronicles in general. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Erminwin thanks, at least, for "not attributing malice", but just a reminder: had you assumed just a bit (more?) good faith from the first place (but you were always trying to find something wrong with me 1 2, sometimes also making blunders in your haste 3) we'd had much less problems and spared a lot of time.
 * But regarding your specific accusation here, I also don't think there's malice with you, probably a problem of understanding between us: I explained to you more than one time why I put that sentence in that article. It is not POV pushing, that is an article about the Attilid dynasty, hence, when I wrote it, I focused on the subject and put in the article as many information as possible regarding the king and his progeny. Like I told you recently, an unwitting editor, without knowing that Attila had allegedly a "myriad of children" may say "Wait, gotcha! Attila had only three children: Ellac, Dengizich, and Ernak, so Csaba cannot exist!". Unfortunately, you misinterpreted the text I originally posted Another possible descendant of the Attilids are the Árpád dynasty. Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people". According to Hungarian tradition, one of these children was Csaba, the father of Ed from the Aba (...); ending up claiming to know the reason why the Hungarian chroniclers Simon of Keza and Anonymous wrote what they wrote, changing the aforementioned sentence in: As Attila had many wives, and numerous children, allegedly "amounting to a people", medieval Hungarian chroniclers, Anonymus (notary of Béla III) and Simon of Kéza, claimed Attilid ancestry for the Árpád dynasty and the Aba clan.
 * "you should be wiser and mind your own business."  is an advice, not bullying, and you can read it as bullying only if you have a prejudice against me, which you might have, since we have been discussing for a while and I proved you wrong a couple of times (you also did, once, though). I said that because Borsoka pushed himself in an argument that did not concern them, asking other editors to join him against me (4). Isn't that leafleting or something?
 * You rightly quoted me, I do think this is a form of tag teaming. Read the relative article for more. Several points apply.
 * And yes, I did say I would leave Wikipedia after this because I got a little tired with all this lack of good faith, and with Borsoka so deliberately pushing their view on that article, nobody doing anything, and the guy even playing the mirror game and saying I am pushing my POV.
 * While I don't think there is malice with Erminwin, at this point I think there might be with Borsoka. They reverted multiple times my edits, starting first, when they did without even attempting to use the talk page first:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * Here another user in support of Borsaka, who did ask to use the talk page but then, once the revert was successfully completed, disappeared completely from the map: 4
 * 5
 * Borsoka's CIVIL:POV is sophisticated but at some points becomes ridiculous because, when they don't know what to do to have it their own way, they just start making up things, like saying that 8 secondary sources, in their mind, are 1 source, and that the commentary of an editor is a primary source. Then, a) implying to have ordered, received, and read 300 pages of a German book in a few hours and b) claiming that I tell lies, and the text I quoted for one source is not in the book 1; although this is not true.
 * But this is not the end of it. Each time I expand the article, they don't just delete the content, and the sources, they also remove the templates I legitimately place (I say leigitimately because the content they seemingly "support" does include primary sources, and is otherwise based on a single, 1990s book, whose source lacks both a quote and a link, and I am not able to verify). Borsoka is not just pushing their view, they are also preventing any type of discussion. If they do come to the talk page, they will say the sources (secondary) are primary, that the sources (2007; 2006; 1999; "theirs" is from 1996) are old, that I am making OR, or sometimes will even justify their action with "no need".
 * Even though what I am doing is not merely reverting their edits, but expanding anew the article each time (that is, each time I edit the sources and add more sources to them) they posted an edit warring notice on my page 1; then reminded me several times not to edit war 2 3, before again deleting the content from the page and claiming they would "stop discussing the matter with me", though we had not reached a conclusion.
 * For the kernel of the issue, you can read the talk page, but it is very simple: three Hungarian chronicles, two say A and one says B. Borsoka wants to include in the article one chronicle saying A and one saying B, leaving the other chronicle, which would make the A point look more likely, out.
 * Admittedly I had at first used a primary source (the book of Keza; because the matter is well known, and I thought it wasn't necessary, several other Keza-related and Anonymous-related articles using primary sources) so at least their first revert might be acceptable. But then, I brought to the article, 5, then 6, then 8 secondary, reliable sources, but Borsoka wouldn't have none of it.
 * My vague suspect that there might be some personal interest in keeping one chronicle out for them was enhanced by noticing that they had already tried to keep such chronicle out of the article (here). Giray Altay (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

1. No, I have never stated, suggested or implied that I read a German book. I only proved with a link to jstor that the allegedly cited pages in the book cannot contain the information to be verified. 2. I repeat that the text allegedly quoted from a book published by CEU Press does not contain the quoted text. 3. Giray Altay does not understand that we do not need to repeat in a new sentence an inbormation about the legendary descend of the Abas from Attila just to refer to a further chronicle in the article. Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * a) Why do you think that the "allegedly cited pages in the book cannot contain the information to be verified"?! b) I repeat that the CEU Press does contain the quoted text (!) c) see how you have shifted the focus now: first the sources were not good, now, that you know everybody will see they are, you say that the reason of your actions is "we do not need to repeat in a new sentence an inbormation about the legendary descend of the Abas from Attila just to refer to a further chronicle in the article".
 * The problem wasn't repeating the sentence, but reporting Simon Keza's claim or not. Though in your last edits you left Simon Keza's mention (adding next to it "cn" template, though I provided 8 sources; meanwhile you removed the templates I had placed), what you previously, repeatedly did was trying to hide Simon of Keza altogether, keeping on deleting that content.
 * Reporting that Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum made such claim is important, actually fundamental. This is arguably the best known Hungarian chronicle, and was written in the same century as Anonymous' (who, by the way, does not deny the alleged paternal Attilid descent). We cannot keep such important information out of the article.
 * Furthermore, the way you'd like to present the article (cf. him/her and me), it reads like this claim was made as late as in the 14th-century. Which is not true. So the article you'd want is misleading. Giray Altay (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I did not want to hide Simon of Kéza. I consolidated two sentences with the same core information and asked you to verify your reference to Simon of Kéza in the context . Instead of verifying your claim, you reverted my edit . Borsoka (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not consolidate two sentences, you utterly removed Simon of Keza, and you did it more than once (1, 2). While I tried to discuss at the talk page, and updated the article with new sources, you stalled the conversation at the talk page, initially finding excuses, then even lying (3), and at the same time continued to remove the updated, changed content I added to the article. Because this is not the first time that you thwart attempts to include Keza in the article (4) I came to the conclusion you are trying to hide Simon Keza from the article. Only in your last edit, when the situation had escalated and I had provided many, many sources you included Keza in the article (5). Even so, you placed a "cn" template, though 8 sources had been provided, and for the seventh time (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) removed the templates ("cn", etc.) that I had placed.--Giray Altay (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed your "cn" templates because you placed them in sentences that were verified by references to reliable sources. All your templates were absolutely useless. Please remember that a third editor also noted this . Borsoka (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot remove templates just because you think they are useless. You should at least discuss this at the talk page. The templates of course, is the last of the problems here, and you haven't yet addressed the main issues with your conduct.
 * And thanks for reminding me of the other user: after Borsoka had carried out three reverts (1, 2, 3), a third editor popped up, undoing the additions and completely removing Simon of Keza from the article (4). They, too, avoided using the talk page, and justified their action with: "That really does not look like improvement. Please use the talk page to explain your edit". I did has they asked, and explained, another time, at the talk page, pinging them. As silently they had come, so silently they disappeared. They did not join the discussion at the talk page, and they role has been merely undoing my edits. Giray Altay (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Two editors thought that they were useless. You were challenging a quote from a primary source although its use was verified by a historian's work, and you were demanding citations for well cited sentences. How could we describe your behaviour if not as a typical example of vandalism? Sorry, I stop discussing this issue because you fails to listen to what other editors are trying to explain to you. Borsoka (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The "other" editor reverted my contributions, gave a vague explanation (That really does not look like an improvement) and then disappeared from the map. Also, always in the edit summary, they invited me to "explain" my edit on the talk page, which I did, pinging them (1). The last time I heard from the was more than 2 days ago (2). They never showed up on the talk page, though they were active in Wikipedia. It was maybe them who had to give an explanation, since they hid content from the article and removed sources; basically, mimicking your behavior.
 * How could we describe your behaviour if not as a typical example of vandalism? there might by a vandal here, but it is not me. I am the one who is building, expanding the article, you are the one deleting what I build.
 * Sorry, I stop discussing this issue because you fails to listen to what other editors are trying to explain to you is this what someone who's right would say? It's not the first time that you try to "get rid of me" and end the discussion (2), though consensus was not reached. Giray Altay (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt to reach a compromise but it is impossible . Do we need this editor's contribution to our project? Borsoka (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I can see why tempers are frayed but this does not quite reach (IMO) the level of actionability here. Yet. I really suggest going to AN/I or, better yet, taking some other step like an RFC or noticeboard posting to bring knowledgeable editors in to resolve the underlying dispute about the validity of the sourcing. Without doing that, no actions of any kind against any editors are really going to resolve this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Mirddes reported by User:LokiTheLiar (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 2022-11-24 09:29

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2022-11-25 20:54
 * 2) 2022-11-25 20:40
 * 3) 2022-11-25 13:05
 * 4) 2022-11-25 10:40
 * 5) 2022-11-24 23:37

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mirddes deleting the warning on their talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Mirddes has added the word "some" on the page for Blanchard's typology five times over a 24 hour period at this point. I also note that Mirddes is making some pretty WP:NOTFORUM-y comments in the above talk page discussion, but that's not quite the purview of this noticeboard. Loki (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * bro you don't need to harrass me simply because we have ideological differences, i'm no longer going to edit your prescious article lest i incur the wrath of your religion. Mirddes (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:ASPERSIONS, right after being warned about this&#91;permalink&#93;, which will get you over to the Parent board, if you keep it up. See Law of holes. Mathglot (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * what are you on about? Mirddes (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * im being told "shut the fuck up or get banned" and anything i say in my defence will get me banned.
 * agree or get banned, shut up or get banned.
 * i disagree with all assertions. the source does not support the article's claims that anyone is claiming all trans people are perverts. Mirddes (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * nuance exists. not everyone agrees with the "generally accepted" dogma of the modern religion.
 * permaban me if that's what happens when people ideologically disagree with each other.
 * no one will defend me, they'll get cancelled too. Mirddes (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not what is happening here. There is some compartmentalization on these pages, so that at the article Talk page, we talk about article content, not editors. However, at an Administrator's board, we talk about editor behavior, not article content (other than to illustrate behavior). So, whether you are right or wrong about article content claims about trans people, that is beside the point here. This discussion is about your behavior as an editor, not about whether the article is correct or not. If  you wish to participate here, you should address whether the claims about your editing behavior (warring) are correct or not. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * compartmentalization is disgusting. Mirddes (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * and dehumanising. Mirddes (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * and for the record, its not the articles claims about trans people that bother me, it's the article's claims about people who don't 100% agree with the modern religion.
 * my behaviour as an editor these past 15 years has been flawless.
 * until today apparently, because i edited something someone strongly believes in.
 * i counter claims of editwarring with accusations of editwarring. i am an individual, they are an ideology.
 * if that digs a bigger hole, im mounding it up as my hill to die on. Mirddes (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * what becomes of the errant bureaucracy? look at twitter. Mirddes (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked. See block log for bases in addition to edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Hahhahahha reported by User:Hawkeye7 (Result: LTA blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: Don't appreciate the personal attacks either. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  10:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * LTA blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

User:DeFacto reported by User:Sauer202 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Recent diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Older revertions on the same topic
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Another older relevant (anti-metric) revertion of a well sourced edit warring tendency between the same two authors:
 * 1)

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: For reference, DeFacto also seems to might have been in similar themed edit wars on the same page in the past. Reading the archived talk pages, other authors seem to have run into similar issues regarding the exact same topic: Sauer202 (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Kilometres per hour/Archive 2
 * Talk:Kilometres per hour/Archive 2
 * Talk:Kilometres per hour/Archive 2


 * Two reverts today to counter the disruption of the filer while a discussion about this is ongoing, and matching the two reverts made by the filer on the same day, and nothing else since October? Are you serious? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per above. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. I want to clarify that I did not view the 3RR citeria as fulfilled, but that my understanding from reading the guidelines was that while 3RR is sufficient criteria, it is not a necessary criteria in order to constitute edit warring., Can I get a comment on that? My apologies if I have misunderstood the criteria. Sauer202 (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's correct. As there is now an RfC on the article's talk page (thanks for creating it) and you both are discussing, I hope there's no need for action. You seem to be concerned about the state of the article for the duration of the RfC, which is pretty unimportant given that this is not a biography of a living person and the issue under discussion is a technicality. In case you are uncomfortable with the current revision of the article, please be patient and look forward to the closure of the RfC. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Sauer202 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

User:ShadyNorthAmericanIPs reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Partially blocked for 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop adding this unsourced, inflammatory smear to the infobox. There are four threads on the Talk page about this topic spanning multiple years, and still not a single source for the Klan "support" claim. Restoring status quo ante once again. Undid revision 1124198469 by 2001:569:BEB6:CF00:81CC:4BF2:3306:51CC (talk)"
 * 2)  "Please stop adding these unsourced claims to the infobox. Thanks! Undid revision 1124166745 by Trainerash123 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Rm inflammatory unsourced infobox updates. Build consensus on the talk page, find reliable sources, don't issue ultimatums and make bad-faith accusations of bias. Undid revision 1124146173 by Trainerash123 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Revert unsourced Klan smear (and the other random edits that came along with it). See talk page. Undid revision 1124058521 by Trainerash123 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Stop trying to erase KKK and KoC involvement */"

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ??? ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Augusta397 reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - «Removed quoted clause used to misrepresent court findings.»
 * 2)  - «Deleted false quote claiming to be statement from prosecutor at the trial, when actually it is a quote from the South China Morning Post and not present in the court record actually opposite of what is contained in court record).»
 * 3)  - «Edited to remove misleading commentary concerning bio of living person.»
 * 4)  - «This was not said during the trial.»

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:

Single purpose account created yesterday focused on Casey T. Arrowood, their involvement in the Trial of Anming Hu and the China Initiative. Removed content with boilerplate reasons in edit summary. No response to provide sources for their claims. Distortion of citation by renaming source without changing the url. Qiushufang (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi there,
 * My only edits have been to remove misleading quotes and to correct misinformation on BLP. I've explained reasoning behind each revision. Augusta397 (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not provided any sources for your claims while ignoring an edit warring warning. Your edit summaries have been boilerplate accusations of misinformation while providing no explanation for why that is. Simply saying something is untrue does not make it so. Furthermore your account was created yesterday while editing specifically material related to Casey T. Arrowood, suggesting perhaps a personal relationship or material motive. Qiushufang (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We can let the admins look at the record and decide. I think it is clear who is making factual edits for accuracy and who is not. Augusta397 (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally agree with @Qiushufang. The new editor has been deleting material with spurious reasons.
 * The last deletion however--which merely deleted the inflammatory quote--seems justified however. The quote was very thinly sourced. I opened up a talk page discussion, with the quote and the source. -- M.boli (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into the inflammatory quote. I am taken aback by the claim that I've made edits with "spurious reasons" and by @Qiushufang's accusation of hidden motives. You each have topics of interest as well – these general claims of biased motivations could be lobbed at nearly any editor, and it's telling that they've been thrown around here so quickly. Let's please stick to good-faith discussions over how best to build a factual record. Augusta397 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case the recency of the account and the frequency of the reverts is moot because BLP is involved, and Augusta is not adding contentious, problematically sourced material, rather removing reliably sourced material he argues is being used to mislead. As they suggest above the remedy right now is talk page discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Michaelthompson1333 reported by User:ARandomName123 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Life"
 * 2)  "Name change"
 * 3)  "Name change"
 * 4)  "Name change"
 * 5)  "Change sexualised"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Stephen Bailey."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Stephen Bailey."
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism."
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Stephen Bailey."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent inaccurate changes to birth year and removal of content. ARandomName123 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked as VOA. Just a heads up that you could have reverted the last changes to the article without fear of violating WP:EW because vandalism, which is what it was, is exempt under WP:3RRNO.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks, I was just doing some other work, so I didn't see all of the latest changes. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:81.78.6.98 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Who cares?"
 * 2)  "Sentence removed to annoy whoever keeps re-inserting it."
 * 3)  "Deleted sentence if factually incorrect. Please forward to higher level review."
 * 4)  "The deleted sentence is itself misinformation. If wikipedia wants to include misinformation, fair enough, but as the more detailed description within the extended 'controversies' section his crime was 'misleading' not 'misinformation'. Let's be accurate. Of course, if someone doesn't like him, you can include any old npo"
 * 5)  "Sentence removed as not supported by either of the two links provided neither of which include the very specific term 'misinformation'."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Clear 3RR violation. Number   5  7  20:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:141.168.65.151 reported by User:Nightmare Rarity (Result: Blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (RW 16.1)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP address editor has appeared only to add an uncited name to a BLP. May possibly just be a vandal for all I know here. Nightmare Rarity Enter the palace 13:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * although this would have probably been better off being reported at WP:AIV. Number   5  7  20:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Smefs reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: "(Removing protection templates from unprotected page (more info))"

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ES: (This edit is to ensure neutrality. There are very few unbiased sources that support the article's narrative. The text of the article has been edited to more fall in line with the information provided by the cited sources.)
 * 2)  (Undid revision 1124107233 by Adakiko (talk): not adhering to neutral point of view)
 * 3)  (Undid revision 1124112044 by Adakiko (talk): not adhering to Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  (Undid revision 1124112044 by Adakiko (talk): not adhering to Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Disclose.tv being fake-news has been discussed before at length on talk:Disclose.tv
 * discussion on user talk:Smefs
 * There is an open discussion wp:ANI.

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

Comments:

Smefs is removing that Disclose.tv is a fake-news website which is well-sourced. Smefs appears to misunderstand wp:NPOV, wp:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WAR, and wp:BRD. Adakiko (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Smefs has been reverted on Disclose.tv by, , , and
 * Smefs has also removed sourced COVID-related and anti-vax info from the following two articles.
 * On, removed " and other measures have also been driven by COVID-19 misinformation, conspiracy theories, far-right and other extremist groups and individuals. " ES: "Grammatical errors and ensuring neutrality".
 * On refactored " party that promotes COVID-19 misinformation and misinformation around vaccines " replacing it with " generally vaccine-skeptical party, campaigning primarily on this issue "  ES: "Ensuring neutrality."
 * discretionary sanctions/pseudoscience notice was added to Smefs' talk page: - reverted by Smefs and replaced with a
 * for edit warring and ignoring BRD. Number   5  7  20:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:1.239.117.84 reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - «No edit summary»

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - «No edit summary»
 * 2)  - «No edit summary»
 * 3)  - «No edit summary»
 * 4)  - «Undid revision 1124346630 by Qiushufang talk)»
 * 5)  - «Please provide evidence that the people of Bohai or the successors of Heungryo have been Sinicized. At that time, the country that destroyed Heungryo was the country of the Khitan people, and then it was integrated into Mongolia through the Jin Dynasty.»

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

IP and their newly created account User:Epigrad engaged in single purpose POVPUSH. Engaged in circular argument in talk. Epigrad made the same edit as IP, edit summary based on talk discussion with IP, same idiosyncratic use of name "Heungryo" (Heungyo in article) as IP that does not show up in a google search. Qiushufang (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The document was previously renamed without justification.
 * And without any basis, the names in the document were changed to Chinese Pinyin.
 * Nowhere in Alexander Kim's thesis does the word Xingliao appear. Epigrad (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have provided a rationale for the name change, and you have not provided a ranked rationale for it.
 * Documents keep coming back, isn't this a document monopoly? Epigrad (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Given their response, it's safe to say Epigrad and IP are the same person. As a response, the article name is Sin Liao in Kim and Hsing-Liao in Twitchett, different versions of Xingliao. Other reasons have already been given for the name choice in talk which they have ignored with circular arguments that lead back to how to impose the change they want. Also possibly WP:NPA with this. Qiushufang (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The word Xingliao is the pinyin of Chinese, and it is difficult to see it as a word used by common English speakers.
 * Are there other papers by English speakers who express themselves as Xingliao besides the paper?
 * If you want the document title to be Chinese Pinyin, you must change it after clearly providing reasons for using Chinese Pinyin. Epigrad (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In the first place, the grounds I presented are grounds with different logics, and do not fall under circular reasoning. Epigrad (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your claim is that after the fall of the Xing Liao state, they came to speak Chinese, but there is no basis for ranking for that.
 * I asked for a rationale for it, but you gave no reply. Epigrad (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll show you all my conversations.
 * The conversation is this.
 * Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Xingliao, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The contents of the document seem to be written in Chinese Pinyin.
 * Like Jeongan-guk or Later Balhae, Heungryoguk is also a follow-up state to Parhae in Korean history.
 * I would like to proceed with editing the content, but you are renaming the document in Chinese Pinyin.
 * Please state the rationale for reverting the name to Chinese Pinyin. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited used use that transliteration. The name of the polity, Xingliao, is a direct reference to the Liao dynasty, which makes it unlikely to be a successor of Parhae or part of Korean history as it was neither situated in Korea nor named after Parhae. Qiushufang (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that if another country presents a thesis using the title of Heungryo country, you agree to change the headline? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as it is not named after Balhae, its founder had been separated from Balhae for more than a hundred years, it is not situated in Korea, and as the article notes itself the Balhae people in the Liao military did not join the state and only a handful of Jurchens did. If the logic is that the founder is descended from the people of Balhae and thus the state is Korean, then Wiman of Gojoseon should be changed to Wei Man of Gaogouli because he was from China and Wiman of Gojoseon would be changed to Wei Man of Gaogouli . Thus pinyin transliteration takes precedence. Qiushufang (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the basis that Jurchens participated in Heungryokuk and Balhae people participated in a minority?
 * Is it because Alexander Kim's thesis claimed so?
 * If so, is it non-linguistic that it is reasonable to change it to the Heungryo country if there is an opposing argument in another scholar's thesis? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses reliable secondary and tertiary sources as the basis for articles. Qiushufang (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean you can change the headline if you present the data that corresponds to it? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not changes are made depends on consensus, probably based on the the sources used. So far you have not shown any reason for why the names should be changed beyond that you want them to. Qiushufang (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * However, there is something wrong with your words.
 * In the history book of Liao Dynasty, 『遼史』
 * 卷17 本紀17 聖宗8 太平 10 years August丙午 The article clearly states that Daeyeonrim was destroyed and 'Balhae' was destroyed.
 * Since Dae Yeon-rim is the founder of Heung-ryo-guk, this is the basis for calling He-gyo-guk Balhae in the Liao Dynasty. 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not based on primary sources. Qiushufang (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What are primary sources?
 * Are you saying Wikipedia doesn't recognize history books? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the number one source on Wikipedia is to include records of people at the time.
 * Are you saying that the history books left behind by people at the time cannot be the primary source? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this is a history book left by people of the time, isn't it the number one source?
 * If so, since it is a much more important source than the secondary sources you are talking about, Heungryao was founded by the Balhae people, and even Liao, who fought directly with them, acknowledged it.
 * That is why it is expressed that he subdued Heungryo-guk of Daeyeonrim and subjugated Balhae.
 * Of course, shouldn't the headline also be changed? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not how Wikipedia works, no. Qiushufang (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you say no?
 * I know that Wikipedia's number one source includes records of people at the time.
 * Are you saying that the history books left behind by people at the time cannot be the primary source? 1.239.117.84 (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC) Epigrad (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As you can see, you are not giving a proper answer to the question about me.
 * In short words, I'm just saying that Wikipedia doesn't work that way.
 * Who do you see as a person who uses circular reasoning without providing proper evidence for other people's claims? Epigrad (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My core argument for returning the document to the Heungryo as it was originally is as follows.
 * 1. There is no example of using Chinese Pinyin as a proper name for Heungryo in the thesis submitted by English speakers.
 * 2. Heungryo is the successor state of Balhae, and it is identified in the history books, which are the first basis. And since Parhae is a country that corresponds to Korean history, it is reasonable that its successor state also corresponds to Korean history.
 * 3. There is no clear ranking evidence that the people living in Heungryo were assimilated with Chinese speakers.
 * 4. At that time, the languages used in Heungryo were Goguryeo-Korean and Malgal-Manchu languages. It is inappropriate to write in Chinese, which was not used at the time.
 * You didn't answer this at all, so are you telling me to use circular logic? Epigrad (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For reference, I and 1.239.117.84 are the same person, and I participated in the editing as 1.239.117.84 for the first time.
 * That's because they didn't have an account, so after learning how to create one, they want to use it to talk.
 * It is not intended to confuse anyone, but it is clearly stated that it is a mistake due to inexperience in use. Epigrad (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Clear 3RR violation. Number   5  7  20:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:162.221.218.49 reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

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

Comments:

I would describe this as a slow edit war, attempting to place "decisive" in the result parameter of the infobox. The article does not refer to it as a decisive victory. The change is not supported by the article and consequently, there are no citations supporting this. MOS:MIL gives guidance that would deprecate such terms. Edit summaries restoring content are: "Per MOS:MIL", "Per MOS:MIL This has also been the stable version for some time", "per MOS:MIL - not supported by body of the article either", (and by ) "As per WP:MOSMIL. If you wish to contest the change, please do so on the talk page" and "Undo again, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page" Cinderella157 (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * . If the IP restarts the edit warring after this expires, let me know and I will block them. Number   5  7  20:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Bcmh reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked for two weeks)
Pages:

User being reported:

User is edit warring across multiple articles. Has not violated 3RR this time (although they did at Next Singaporean general election on 6/7 November), but this has been ongoing for some time now and the editor has used sockpuppets during the process.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At President of Singapore
 * 1) 16:14, 27 November 2022
 * 2) 02:36, 28 November 2022 (a repeat of this previous edit)
 * 3) 10:21, 28 November 2022

At Next Singaporean general election
 * 1) 06:16, 27 November 2022
 * 2) 16:23, 27 November 2022
 * 3) 02:22, 28 November 2022
 * 4) 15:23, 28 November 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Bcmh was asked to self-revert after breaching 3RR earlier in the month. They ignored the request and instead created a sockpuppet account and continued their edit warring on the same topic (opening paragraphs) across several other articles. They were then blocked for a week.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are ongoing discussions at both Talk:President of Singapore and Talk:Next Singaporean general election, during which Bcmh has continued to try and force their changes into the article, despite a lack of consensus to do so.

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

Comments:

Last I checked, it takes two hands to clap, and mine have used common media, legislative and even constitutional sources to back the singular claim that an article referring to a single general election after every dissolution of parliament should be using singular phrasing such as "the next Singaporean general election is due to take place ... " as opposed to "general elections are due to be held ... "

Constitutional source: "There shall be a general election at such time, within 3 months after every dissolution of Parliament, as the President shall, by Proclamation in the Gazette, appoint."

It's also noteworthy that I have never edited any article or phrasing in an article with plural phrasing such as General elections in Singapore because in that situation, the article is clearly referring to multiple general elections across multiple dissolutions of parliament. How can singular and plural be used "interchangeably" when each clearly refers to different situations? Furthermore, the title of the article itself reflects the correct phrasing of the situation it refers to, that is, a single general election occasioned by a single dissolution of parliament.

Regarding the other article, I was merely correcting a mistake in saying that the "executive authority of Singapore is vested in the Cabinet" when it's clearly vested in the President and exercisable by the Cabinet, and I clearly showed the source for this, is correcting mistakes now considered edit warring?

Constitutional source: "The executive authority of Singapore shall be vested in the President and exercisable subject to the provisions of this Constitution by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet." Bcmh (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * True, as noted above, 3RR wasn't violated but just because it wasn't doesn't make this any less edit warring—it really seems from the recent edits on Next Singaporean general election that Bcmh was gaming the system, spacing out their reverts to avoid making four within any 24-hour period, but the greater point to me is that they kept reverting to make their point (and, really ... edit warring over whether to use singular or plural? I think this is a good candidate for WP:LAME) When you say "unable to recall previous editor getting consensus either" in an edit summary, you have effectively confessed you're edit warring. Given Bcmh's previous recent history of getting blocked for a week over sockpuppetry related to previous edit warring, I find a longer block than usual is merited. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:195.252.65.216 reported by User:Ronnnaldo7 (Result: Blocked for 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked for 72 hours, page restored. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Dark knight 5329 reported by User:Innocence8 (Result: Nominator blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on UAAP Season 85 basketball tournaments."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on UAAP Season 85 basketball tournaments."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Nominator blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr reported by User:Some1 (Result: Partially blocked for 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:04, 25 November 2022
 * 2) 23:12, 27 November 2022
 * 3) 01:12, 28 November 2022
 * 4) 21:00, 29 November 2022
 * 5) 21:58, 29 November 2022

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr disagrees with the RfC close (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy). Told them to discuss with the closer at User_talk:Szmenderowiecki. They refuse to open a closure review at WP:AN after being advised to if they still disagree with the closer, and continues to slow-edit war against multiple editors.

Comments:
 * , from editing this specific article only ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Brohman54 reported by User:Archer1234 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Brohman54's original edit to add an infobox image)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Brohman54's reverting the reversion of their original edit)
 * 2)  (Brohman54 reverting again to their version with the disputed infobox image)
 * 3)  (Brohman54 reverting again (while logged out using a cellular IPv6 address) to their version with the disputed infobox image)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (also on Brohman54's talk page: )

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: (also notice on IPv6's talk page: )

Comments:

I am just looking to discuss the dispute with the user over the inclusion of the image in the infobox, but they have not shown any indication of trying to communicate. Now that the user has resorted to restoring their edits while logged out I think we are at the point that some actions are necessary to bring the user to the discussion (blocking and/or page protection). Thanks. — Archer1234 (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked. See block log for multiple bases. I have found abusive logged out editing by at least two IPs (listed in block log); unfortunately, they are not amenable to being range-blocked because there would be too much collateral damage, typical, I'm afraid, of this Indian ISP's IPv6's.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it okay for me to revert the most recent edits by the IPv6 at Skanda (general)? I am already up to three reverts myself on that article and I do not want to run afoul of 3RR and get sanctioned. &mdash; Archer1234 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, . There's no longer a need to, as I have restored the stable revision prior to the edit war and blocked the logged-out participant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:


 * Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

User:2403:6200:8871:2336:995:A96A:489C:7FC2 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1124933307 for first revert, same /64 range.
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1124934863 by Hut 8.5 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1124933612 by Ianmacm (talk)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Elizabeth II."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverting edit(s) by 2403:6200:8871:2336:995:A96A:489C:7FC2 (talk) to rev. 1124934863 by Hut 8.5: Vandalism (UV 0.1.3)"

Comments: Lemonaka (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Why you removing blp template from talk page of article about living person? 2403:6200:8871:2336:995:A96A:489C:7FC2 (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * E II has died for nearly a month, are you sure she's still alive? Lemonaka (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know her death news was fake. 2403:6200:8871:2336:995:A96A:489C:7FC2 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say, just Lmao. Lemonaka (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48h for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

User:IntrepidContributor reported by User:HAL333 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Initial revert of status quo
 * 2) Revert #2
 * In multiple piecemeal edits, they readded most of the contested paragraph, using misleading edit summaries like "ce". This was after I asked them to discuss and gain consensus per BRD:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

The issue involves the addition of a paragraph that may be undue weight. IntrepidContributor claimed that there was a consensus per an older discussion where there clearly was none. But the main issue is that this edit warring is simply disruptive. As one can imagine, Elon Musk is a tense article subject to frequent disruptive editing. After I asked the user on their talk page "to please discuss", they responded with this curt response and then proceeded to readd the contested paragraph. Instead of edit warring, I am bringing this matter to you.

IntrepidContributor was blocked for edit warring related to Taiwan and China just last month. They should know better. Please address this. Thanks, ~  HAL  333  07:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not want to make any unbased accusations, but it is of note that the IP cited in the discussion for consensus is located in the same nation as IntrepidContributor. This may be purely coincidental. ~ HAL  333  07:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple consecutive edits count as 1 edit, you are experienced enough to know that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It may not be 3RR, but it it is edit warring. What was I supposed to do? I tried to initiate discussion and compromise and they reverted twice more. If I had reverted to the status quo again, they certainly would have reverted again. IntrepidContributor has already been blocked for edit warring, so so this kind of behavior shouldn't be happening at all. ~ HAL  333  14:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you bringing up a past block? Is it supposed to persuade an administrator that I am a bad person? I expanded the peace proposal in the politics section exactly as you suggested as a compromise. I still think it deserves a subsection of its own but I am fine with the compromise of putting it in the politics section. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no connection with that IP, so it is very much an "unbased" accusation, just like your accusation that I was edit warring. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Statement by IntrepidContributor

On 14 October I wrote a new subsection about Musk's proposed peace plan in the "Views and Twitter usage" section of his bio. On 28 October, boldly removed the content, claiming "massive undue, weight, duplicated info, poor sourcing, present in subarticle", which as I noted earlier today in the talk page, wasn't entirely true, before restoring it to the page. Instead of arguing with HAL333 on whether the section merits its own subsection after he reverted my restoration, I took him up on his offer for a "compromise" and incorporated a highly summarised form of the content in the politics subsection, where it was already being covered.

Now, has removed the content completely, which I don't think was ever HAL333's intention, so I have posted it to the NPOV noticeboard. The story was very widely covered by reliable sources I'm very unimpressed with the lack of collaboration from these editors and the spurious accusation of edit warring.

It is probably also worth mentioning that when I restored the content this morning, I added yesterday's New York Times article about Zelensky inviting Musk to Ukraine to rethink his peace plan, and I started a discussion on the talk page, explaining that the story now satisfies WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.

IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * NOne of which would excuse edit warring, if you are revert4ed you make a case, not rerevert. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no edit war. I added it twice  and HAL333 removed it twice  . In their edit summary, HAL333 insisted that the content be removed while we discuss it, but failed to participate in the discussion beyond accusing me of edit warring. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You added it thrice! And during an ongoing discussion. The onus is on you. You were reverted on this issue back in October, and you did not have a consensus then and you do not have a consensus now. And to the contrary, I was actually civil and didn't directly accuse you of edit warring in that discussion.~ HAL  333  16:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not add "it" thrice. The third set of edits was expansion of the allegation in the politics section, as I have now mentioned thrice here. You suggested this as a compromise yourself and added the Putin contact accordingly, as you said here . IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose that entire paragraph as a compromise.... ~ HAL  333  16:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And I didn't write that entire paragraph. In my third set of edits, I reordered paragraphs of the section, rewrote parts of the Ukraine-related paragraph for clarity and added three sentences to it, as any administrator should be able to see in the diffs . If you object to the sentences I added, this isn't the right venue to discuss that. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actualy wp:3rr is not a right or upper limit. An edit war is "editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions", so technically it was an edit war. However (as I pointed out above) you did not violate 3RR, I am just pointing out that none of what you said justifes reverting back to your preferred version once reverted. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems the discussion on the talk page has reached a consensus that discussing the peace plan at the level of detail IC believes it should be is beyond what summary style requires at this time. This consensus has only been clear for a couple of hours, well after IC's last revert, so I do not consider it edit warring. However, now that consensus has been reached, IC is advised that any further attempt to restore it will not/should not/cannot be given the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of his last, piecemeal revert, an action arguably prejudicial to good faith, and will be so notified on his talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Ascertain2022 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1125091683 by General Ization (talk) Example of similar other blog posts by American consultancy Gartner that is cited across Wikipedia: https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3956304. What's different here? Size? Australian consultancy risible? Explain criteria better."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1125090970 by MrOllie (talk) Please read my replies on your Talk page ""
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1125088163 by MrOllie (talk) Asked on your talk page to kindly differentiate this citation from Gartner blog posts, cited widely across Wikipedia. Is the criteria merely the multinational span of consultancies, or that they are American/British/European?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1125087543 by MrOllie (talk) Ron Kalifa is a consultant. What is going on here? This reiterates every recent criticism of Wikipedia editors that I'd thought of as made-up scare-stories"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1125083788 by MrOllie (talk) Legitimate link. (Why 'Spammy?' )"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Refer to my replies on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascertain2022 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now moot as the editor has been blocked indef for persistent promotional editing, edit warring and personal attacks.  General Ization Talk  04:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Ryanwarriorzz reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The source is also talking about the MAK. No clarification needed."
 * 2)  "The source is very specifically talking about the MAK. Stop the bad faith, because you won't win, we are on a neutral platform and misinformation has no place."
 * 1)  "The source is also talking about the MAK. No clarification needed."
 * 2)  "The source is very specifically talking about the MAK. Stop the bad faith, because you won't win, we are on a neutral platform and misinformation has no place."

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

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

Comments:

See the first edit of Ryanwarriorzz (whose username sets the tone for what's coming). They are now misrepresenting a source and edit warring over it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Given their troll-like conduct right out out of the gate, I've bliocked indef.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

User:User:2a02:2168:84d6:4a00:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:CristoCalis (Result: Nominator blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:33 UTC December 1, 2022

Comments: This IP address has been edit-warring on the Sapphire Rapids page for a week now by removing sources and changing the page link for Intel 7 to 7nm despite all sources saying that Intel 7 is a 10nm fabrication process and that Sapphire Rapids is a 10nm product. Sources with quotes have been provided explicitly stating that it is a 10nm node but the IP has asserted that it is 7nm in violation of WP:VERIFY. The IP's edits have been undone by three different editors (myself, Sahas P., and HurricaneEdgar) but has continued to revert without going to the talk page. On December 1, I put a warning on their talk page, but the following day, they ignored the warning and continued to remove sources and make assertions without evidence. They did the same on December 3. CristoCalis (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment by an involved user: Please look at Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Special:diff/1125236374 by
 * Talk:7 nm process
 * Special:diff/1125236374 by
 * Talk:7 nm process
 * Talk:7 nm process
 * Thank you,, a little on the pithy side, but ultimately helpful. I've blocked CristoCalis as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

User:198.30.181.12 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Rangeblocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1125111362 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1124923196 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1124921911 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1124921911 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated violation of WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL by adding projects that haven't begun filming to Ms Ranaut's filmography Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just two reverts in the last couple of days. Not a problem. Not yet. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was recently advised by the reporter that this editor has resumed, and boy have they! As another IP was used for the most recent edit, I have blocked the /25 range to cover it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Maoye237 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Both users blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing.
 * 2)  Undid revision 1125338726 by Adakiko (talk))
 * 3)  Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing.
 * 4)  External links Dead link
 * First edit on article:
 * 1)  External links, marketing link with inaccurate description

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * EW notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * ‎Use of Edmund Optics and Opto Engineering: fix)
 * Talk:Telecentric_lens

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * (ewn notice)

Comments:

A telecentric lens is a rather unusual optic. Finding a pure non-commercial source of information that is freely available is difficult. Edmund Optics' tutorial and Telecentric lenses tutorial from Opto Engineering are well written, and do not have pricing nor direct marketing on their tutorials. Removal of these without another good source of information would be a loss and they should be retained until a pure non-commercial source is supplied. Adakiko (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also had some discussion on User talk:Maoye237. Maoye237 has since blanked the page.
 * Maoye237 is a new account that has only made a few edits on telecentric lens, but no other articles.
 * As of now, my discussion on Talk:Telecentric_lens has not been replied to. I did notify Maoye237 of the discussion once by a ping, and once on Maoye237's talk page:.
 * I thought I had replaced this 404 link Another good explanatory page by Donald Simanek with archive link, but accidentally duplicated the Edmund's link. Adakiko (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also mentioned wp:KDL about the lockhaven.edu dead link by Donald Simanek, and got a reply: : "your non-commercial link points to a commercial."
 * Both users have violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * per above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Zlogicalape reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The last 4 reverts are the potential breach of the 24 hour bright line rule. The last of the four was 1 hour 14 minutes after the 24 hours - probable gaming and certainly indicates not stopping edit warring as it was the 7th revert in total. DeCausa (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Robin6221 reported by User:Ecrusized (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Possibly also the same user making unregistered changes
 * 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:

Continues edit warring over a prolonged period of time. No response to talk request or edit summaries. Constantly messing with the number casualties without citing sources. Ecrusized (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * from the article, with the exhortation to use the time to open discussion on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 reported by User:Juicy Oranges (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revert 1
 * 2) Revert 2
 * 3) Revert 3
 * 4) Revert 4 (inside of 24 hours of first in sequence)
 * 5) Revert 5 (immediately after 4th)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: I believe this edit demonstrates that Santasa99 fully understood that he was in violation of 3RR at the time, and having been live these last 12 hours or so, has had the opportunity to self-revert.

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

Comments:

Just to clarify a few things. First, I am aware of discretionary sanctions on ex-Yugoslavia articles as these constitute the crux of my editing. Second, I am aware of BOOMERANG and have been to some degree party to the dispute as the article history will show. Lastly, the indications I am getting are that Santasa99 will claim that TAGTEAM on the part of Coldtrack and me which he feels should bring forth "mitigating circumstances" for his firebrand approach and disregard for the site's policies. To that end, I categorically deny TAGTEAM and a look at the article history shows that my first action was not a full blown revert when placed next to Santasa99's first revert predating those of the above. Afterward, I made just one full revert not counting this reversal that was intended to allow Santasa99 to self-revert, or certainly to disable him from claiming that he might have if he had the chance - which I don't believe since he is aggressively selling a point by treating a delicate matter in absolutist terms that neither I nor buy, and nor a third editor to the talk page  who for me has best summed up the key point the rest of us have raised when saying, "Just as importantly WP:RS do not accuse some of these named persons of being 'genocide deniers', only of questioning the definitions employed, not the events that occurred. Others clearly, and rightly, are called 'deniers'. " here. Also, even with my contributions, CT and I have never between the two of us stood at four reverts inside 24 hours and therefore Santasa99's claim of TAGTEAM carries the burden of proof. Meanwhile if you inspect the edit summary that I made which Santasa99 boldly changed without consensus in Jan 2019 after four years of stability, Santasa99 was invited to discern the various types of alternative viewpoints if he wished in order to keep a "denial" para but also others that fall outside of denialism, but he refuses out of hand and I do not believe the community should have to tolerate this flagrant abuse that shows no signs of letting up. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * due to the extra revert. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Dcrajula reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1125726572 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 2)  "This is revealing the entire story. Please don't reveal sensitive information. This will spoil movie watch experience"
 * 3)  "This information is sensitive and would spoil the experience of the movie watch. Can we please contain this"
 * 4)  "Leaking sensitive information"
 * 5)  "Leaking the story"
 * 6)  "Leaking sensitive information from story"
 * 7)  "The plot is being leaked here"
 * 8)  "The plot is being leaked. this is not healthy"
 * 1)  "The plot is being leaked here"
 * 2)  "The plot is being leaked. this is not healthy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "/* Welcome! */ re"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on HIT: The Second Case."
 * 4)   "/* December 2022 */ re"
 * 5)   "/* December 2022 */ re"

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

Comments:

Reporting as I'm involved a tad. User editing to remove spoilers from a released film in violation of WP:SPOILER. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Onlyinohio reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1125761649 by Certes (talk) The image visually represents the number four, the topic of the article, potentially increasing the viewers understanding of the number four, the topic of the article."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1125760092 by Favonian (talk) It's relevant. Keep the image."
 * 3)  "Added an image."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A warning has, in fact, been left on the user's talk page (by Favonian); I do not know why it is not showing up here.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  18:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The user has reverted other editors only twice so far; perhaps they may do so again once or twice before 18:17 GMT 6 December, which in the latter instance would constitute an actionable violation. The original edit they are reverting to is erroneously included in the set of reverts above; the initial edit an alleged 3RR violator/edit warrior keeps restoring is not a revert and so cannot be counted against them (And even if it were, that would be only three reverts so far in this 24-hour period). Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

User:64.60.42.154 reported by User:SunDawn (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restore to stable. Please use the talk page."
 * 2)  "Please use the talk page to discuss why these edits are necessary."
 * 3)  "This section isn't relevant to the page nor written in Wikipedia format. "This platform has whiteness" is not a proper way to write an article."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1125939942 by BeywheelzLetItRip (talk)"
 * 5)  "Instance drama isn't relevant to the Mastodon page"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Toxicity on the platform content */ new section"

Comments:

The editor continues to perform reversion even after being warned. &maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   18:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Valereee reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result:page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Inital version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1 "no need to mention name of private person"
 * 2) 2 "per talk"
 * 3) 3 "ONUS is on the editor wanting to include; claiming exemption from 3RR per potential BLP vio. Please wait until there is consensus to include."
 * 4) 4 "Claiming exemption from 3RR for BLPvio; ONUS applies to the editor wanting to include the content, not to the editor wanting to remove. Please go read ONUS."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: article talk, on user talk: a, b, c, d, at BLPN: BLPN

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

Comments:

The user was suggested to bring a disagreement to the BLPN, and they did so. Within hours, they began edit-warring what they incorrectly termed a 'BLPvio' out of the article, despite ongoing discussion at that noticeboard, without consensus either in the article discussion or BLPN to do so. She was warned multiple time to stop edit-warring and then to self-revert. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Which I did, as another editor offered to make the necessary edit. Valereee (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And here I am, in case I should be needed. I am honestly a bit befuddled by Jack's approach here; the trend on BLPN seems unmistakable (toward non-inclusion of the disputed content) and per WP:ONUS, he should really be establishing consensus.  I have not personally seen another editor yet take up Jack's side of the dispute, though it is entirely possible I have missed something.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To which you emphatically declined until the problematic behavior was spelled out by the same editor. After this complaint had been prepared and submitted. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs)
 * Unless I'm reading timestamps incorrectly (always a possibility), I reverted before you submitted here. Valereee (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite this being a non-issue, there was a point where you were advised by D to self-revert, and you said, in effect, no way. At that point, I started putting together the 3rr. Its a crafted complaint, so it appears that your better nature finally prevailed, but it was too late, as I'd already crafted and posted the complaint. Maybe I should have checked for your compliance to my multiple requests, but your repeated refusal to do so did not encourage that checking before filing. I am glad you self-reverted, though you should have done it the very first time you were asked politely. You let it escalate, and you should absolutely learn the lesson from this. Edit-warring only hurts the article and ultimately, your reputation. I hope you've learned the lesson from the dodged bullet here. If you didn't learn that lesson, it won't be the last time you are here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Advised by D? Oh, wait, you thought this was Dumuzid advising me to self-revert? I interpreted it as Dumuzid as offering to let me revert and they would make the necessary edit. And I believe you are seriously misreading the situation here if you think I dodged a bullet and should have learned a lesson. But we should take this to one of our talks, it's really off-topic here. Valereee (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I fully protected the page for 3 days, no need for blocks as far as I see.Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That works for me; I just wanted the sus problematic reverting to stop. This accomplished that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree that it was problematic. Sorry, blanking on 'sus'? Valereee (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know where Jack is from, but in the UK "sus" is a contraction of "suspicious". i.e. "I saw this guy walking down the street with a hoodie pulled up, he looked a bit sus". Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So it's 'suspicious problematic'? Got it. :) Valereee (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * - Edits can be both suspicious and problematic. A bad edit with bad reasoning is problematic; a bad edit purposely reinstated 4 times over the requests, objections and warnings of others is cause for suspicion. If you want to get snippy, you can miss me with that shit. I've seen where that road leads, and its pretty effing humpty bumpty. I think we're done here, as the page is protected - unless you are interested in beating the dead horse a bit more. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Take it to one of our talks. I neither dodged a bullet nor "learned a lesson", and your repeated insistance of that are starting to become tedious. Valereee (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Cucthanh reported by User:Loafiewa (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed lower estimate ARVN casualties because only covers the period from 1960 to 1974. See talk page"
 * 2)  "ok, please see talk page"
 * 3)  "Add lower estimate"
 * 4)  "this detail was disscus"
 * 5)  "No need talk page. I only wrote some details from these sources"
 * 6)  "These source wrote they are air-defense and logistics support troops"
 * 1)  "No need talk page. I only wrote some details from these sources"
 * 2)  "These source wrote they are air-defense and logistics support troops"
 * 1)  "These source wrote they are air-defense and logistics support troops"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov reported by User:Thingsomyipisntvisable (Result: No violation Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America&diff=1122663243&oldid=1122643084

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America&diff=1125502411&oldid=1125501507
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America&diff=1125487133&oldid=1125315033
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America&diff=1124878899&oldid=1124858593
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America&diff=1124716448&oldid=1124646140
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America&diff=1124510246&oldid=1124484573
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America&diff=1124479392&oldid=1124479369
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America&diff=1124306438&oldid=1123964779

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] not sure what to im supposed to put here, sorry

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) asked to create talk page consensus before continualy reverting changes
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America&action=history
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America#Aztlan_sources_as_a_user_is_engaged_in_an_edit_war

'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: this has also been reverted
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikolai_Gennadievich_Nazarov&diff=1125502307&oldid=1125500204

Comments:

user was asked to help create a talk page consensus before reverting changes in Revision history, however this was ignored and the user continued reverting edits from different users that reference "aztlan" as a seprarist movement, a message was then left on his talk page, this was met with another reversion to a blank page, a seprate user Czello then reverted his changes to the wikipedia page (that didnt include justification in the edit sunmmary) to wich he responded by reverting once again and updating his talk page with new credentials? presumably to justify his removal however the official site citation sources linked in the talk page oppose this notion, Nikolai has ignored all attempts at communication over this subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_North_America#Aztlan_sources_as_a_user_is_engaged_in_an_edit_war
 * It's one thing to ask the other user to start discussion on the talk page and then report them after they continue to revert showing no interest in doing so. However, in this instance you have commendably started a discussion, and since then they have not reverted. The ball is in their court; but as they're still standing at the backline bouncing it (if, indeed, they are still on the court) there is no call yet to make. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * assuming they dont respond to the article talk page, dont respond to the already reverted user talk page and continue reverting the edits of other users who attempt to restore it do i revert their edit or atleast add back the active sepratist movements? Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * could you justify a semi protected page request if not as im stuck on what to do here? Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As of now they still haven't edited the article. If this process and its outcome has prevented further such misconduct, then it will have accomplished its purpose. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I decided to check one more time before this was archived. Wouldn't you know it ... the user made pretty much the same revert with the same reason, claiming the issue was decided, when they had in fact not participated in the talk page discussion they were invited. So ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Atchoum reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Research */ rewording and by the way scientist conclude "The present study supports the clinical application of fenugreek for patients with MetS" and ask for more studies as always"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1126124611 by Zefr (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1126115549 by Zefr (talk)I know you will review all my edit so I don't write edit summary, "The best evidence for efficacy of treatments and other health interventions is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).""
 * 4)  "/* Research */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Fenugreek."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Whether to cite a weak review */ new section"

Comments:

User is also warring at Black tea and Diet and cancer. User is highly disruptive by edit warring on several articles (see user contributions) insisting on use of low-quality reviews to add content for unproven health properties of various herbs and diet components. User is illiterate in English composition, does not engage on any talk page, and does not provide clear edit summaries, but rather uses repeated reverts in disputes. Maximum sanction recommended. Zefr (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes random people are reverting many edits on a narrow time range under false motive or personal views most of the time. I find personally very suspicious the behavior of Zefr by the way. Do he have some conflict of interests that have not been disclose ? Can wikipedia administrators verify this ? Atchoum (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indef block for Atchoum. This is one of the worst users I have seen in a long time. The repeated edit-warring is still happening, now at Vitamin D. They have had many warnings going back to November. Note that this user was also reported at the ANI board last month . They have been given repeated warnings by experienced users on their own talk-page and at many articles, but they do not listen. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:12.18.188.162 reported by User:Czello (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Anyone disagrees that Exciter are thrash metal, fine, but Metal Church were thrash metal on their first album, the Goldmine.com reference even says they invented thrash metal and therefore were an integral part of the early scene of thrash metal. Hopefully this means the end of my supposed "edit war"."
 * 2)  "Rv. READ the references and stop reverting."
 * 3)  "Rv. Yes, it IS important. Stop removing that information."
 * 4)  "Rv. That information was correct, Metal Church and Exciter were either an integral part of that success or credited for contributing to the early thrash scene, see the last reference (goldmine.com). Also, like the German "Big Four", Exciter and Sepultura are not U.S. bands."
 * 5)  "/* Mid-1980s */ Readding Metal Church for the same reason as latest contribution."
 * 1)  "/* Mid-1980s */ Readding Metal Church for the same reason as latest contribution."

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

— Czello 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

User:WaterIguana reported by User:Wikiboo02 (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1126375724 by Zillennial (talk) Let Some1 and Dan Bloch decide first. We need to have moderators determine the date range citations themselves. I have added the Cosmopolitan citation that Some1 has personally added and approved themselves for the cuspers page and Zillennials page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1126367523 by Wikiboo02 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1126287783 by Wikiboo02 (talk) Why is WikiBoo2 attempting to move the 1996-2015 citation into the Pew Research section? There is no consensus to do this! There hasn't been any discussion in the talks page to do this."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1126276309 by Wikiboo02 (talk) There is no consensus in removing the 1996-2015 citation and putting it with the Pew Research Center paragraph. One must first make a talk page discussing it without adding a citation without permission. I have have messaged Some1 and Dan Bloch discussing the situation. I should report for suspected shadowpuppetry."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1125908249 by AusLondonder (talk) Requires consensus from talks discussion page to change. 1996-2015 is a rare range that is not common. No need to put with 1997-2012 paragraph and belongs in 1995 one."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1125908249 by AusLondonder (talk) Requires consensus from talks discussion page to change. 1996-2015 is a rare range that is not common. No need to put with 1997-2012 paragraph and belongs in 1995 one."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Restored revision 1126236264 by WaterIguana (talk): Reverting to the first edit of WaterIguana which was the only correct one they did."

Comments:

User isn’t trying to reach consensus and has reverted way more than 3 times in the past 24 hours. Wikiboo02 (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WaterIguana indefinitely blocked as a sock by .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

User:195.252.66.175 reported by User:GenoV84 (Result: Blocked 24h; one page semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, ,

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

Notification of WP:3RR/edit warring:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments:

I wrote a comment but was deleted once I saved the page. Anyway, this anonymous IP address has continuously and deliberately deleted Serbia-related content and references on the articles 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies, Montenegro at the Olympics, and War crimes in the Kosovo War since 3 December 2022. Their edits have been reverted by other established editors before me (Jeff in CA and Adakiko) but they continued to revert them back again several times. I notified the IP on 6 December 2022 with a Level 1 warning for disruptive editing and removal of sourced content with references on the article 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies, reported them on WP:AIV for said behavior, then I explained to them the reason for the warning. Instead of collaborating with me or other editors, as I suggested them to do in a polite, civil manner, they started to throw at me accusations of stalking and repeated personal attacks. Meanwhile, another editor warned them with a second warning for the same disruptive behavior on the aforementioned articles. GenoV84 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you did not, you were rude to me when I asked you for explanation which can be seen on my talk page. Others also called you out on this and when that report did not work you came here. You are far from polite or civil. I tried to have discussion with you on my talk page, asking you concrete questions about page we are editing and you really were uncooperative. Also, I did not know Montenegro at the Olympics is Serbia-related content but whatever. Also one of the IP edits you put in there is not mine, nice try though.195.252.66.175 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That one was not yours but you reverted other users' edits back to that revision, where the article had already been disrupted by another IP address. That's why I put the diff to that as well. GenoV84 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has been rude with you, nobody has insulted or stalked you in the first place; as you can see by your own contribution history, other editors have reverted your edits for the same reason as I did . I replied to you many times on your talk page and gave you explanations for which your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted, and instead you refuse to be accountable for your persistent disruptive behavior, despite said reverts, warnings, and explanations. GenoV84 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true. 195.252.66.175 (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is true. And in case you didn't read the reply on WP:AIV, JBW replied to my first report today and suggested to report you there again, if you had resorted to your disruptive behavior after the first warning, and you did. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. . GenoV84 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has been rude with you, nobody has insulted or stalked you in the first place; as you can see by your own contribution history, other editors have reverted your edits for the same reason as I did . I replied to you many times on your talk page and gave you explanations for which your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted, and instead you refuse to be accountable for your persistent disruptive behavior, despite said reverts, warnings, and explanations. GenoV84 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies has also been semi-protected for edit warring that, to be fair, this editor had little to do with. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

User:2601:343:C203:4820:C022:4488:4F6D:8513 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Page protected; IP range blocked for a month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * On talk page here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP edit-warring intensely over undiscussed change. Warning given on IP talk page and via edit summary here. R Prazeres (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: IP is still edit-warring . R Prazeres (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * as well, applied to the /64 range, after reviewing the history. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Bulsara413 reported by User:FrB.TG (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Lady Gaga."

Comments:

Continuous edit-warring without a single effort to communicate. An editor and I reached out on their talk page requesting them to use the talk page to discuss their changes but they refuse to listen and do unexplained reversions. FrB.TG (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I just reverted the same edit Special:Diff/1126720906 -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to your ping, I'm afraid this is not something I can take action over given my past editing history on the Lady Gaga article. Acalamari 01:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just was you active in RC. Thanx, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I indefinitely blocked the user for edit-warring across multiple articles, but after investigating a bit further, I suspect the user is a sock of ; see also for username similarity, as well as article intersection.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Virgilanthony reported by User:NebY (Result: Page full-protected for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1126521299 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) A merr vesh anglisht? The source is including all numbers, if you want neutrality - which you said you do - then the previous edit is perfect."
 * 2)  "You are not using the term neutrality correctly, so either do so, or drop the editing."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1126519712 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) Then you have no credibility on the term neutrality. In the case of the census, you should be using the most recent census source which is 2011."
 * 4)  "It does work this way. The source is a source that discusses the 200,000 mark as it's focal point while mentioning all other estimates. So either this remains as it is, or it's changed to reflect ALL estimates in the source e.g. 60,000 to 300,000. This now reflects all estimates, from the 1989 census through to Greek estimates, and the footnote of source mentions the 200,000 western mark."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1126518137 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) The source focuses clearly on the 200,000 mark. This is the overwhelmingly accepted estimation. It's peculiar after your previous issues you are back again, trying to reframe. The source clearly explains it all, and focuses on 200,000 as the standard of Western estimates. If you want to be neutral you'd have to put 60,000-300,000."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1126517008 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) this is not how it is a neutral, the previous posting which has been the norm for a very long time is. Not to mention, the census is from 1989, when Albania was in communism. It is clear this is more a political desire to change. The previous number and explanation is suitable."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1126518137 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) The source focuses clearly on the 200,000 mark. This is the overwhelmingly accepted estimation. It's peculiar after your previous issues you are back again, trying to reframe. The source clearly explains it all, and focuses on 200,000 as the standard of Western estimates. If you want to be neutral you'd have to put 60,000-300,000."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1126517008 by FierakuiVërtet (talk) this is not how it is a neutral, the previous posting which has been the norm for a very long time is. Not to mention, the census is from 1989, when Albania was in communism. It is clear this is more a political desire to change. The previous number and explanation is suitable."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I thought we'd reached consensus on this last month at Talk:Greeks and Talk:Greeks but the other editor has returned to the issue and both have edit-warred after being warned again. NebY (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * in full for a week, as noted above, shortly after both editors' third reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Spazzature reported by User:Mako001 (Result: Page protected for three days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) - As IP


 * 1) - As another IP


 * 1) - First since creating account


 * 1)  "/* Usage as an ethnic term */ The term hybrid race is not correct and never used.  It is called mixed in English or bastard in Afrikaans."

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

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

Comments:

Enaging in a 1AM edit war. Comments include The article will be monitored and false information removed until reliable sources are provided, which I interpret as an explicit commitment to continue edit warring. Has shown no interest in practical discussion, just accusing everyone of adding false information. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 08:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * User also reported at WP:UAA, as "spaz" is an offensive term for disabled people in a number of English-speaking countries. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User has made a retaliatory AN3 report below. I don't see any way back for them now. I'm done here. Cheerio, I'll be back in maybe an hour or so. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 08:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Might as well close this, they were hard blocked for a username violation. Whilst I don't have an issue with investigation of my own conduct here, the report below this one doesn't seem to make much of a case for being suitable for this noticeboard. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 13:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Greatminton reported by User:Stvbastian (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "no external links disguised behind text"
 * 2)  "/* Past winners */"
 * 1)  "/* Past winners */"
 * 1)  "/* Past winners */"

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

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

Comments: Seems Stvbastian does not know how to cite sources properly but instead disguise external links behind text. And then blame me for tidying up the article. Greatminton (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Greatminton never tried to communicate to resolve the problem, neither on the user talk page or article talk page. And, after i gave the user level 3 warning, the user started to defend his editing. Tidying up the article by removing secondary sources? Secondary sources really need to support GNG for the article, but you always remove secondary sources and replaced them with primary single sources. You did that for 3 times in that article. Try to communicate first not just revert, revert and revert.Stvbastian (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And, please, discuss this. I note that there has been more of this than there yet has been on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

User:FierakuiVërtet reported by User:NebY (Result: Page full-protected for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1126519849 by Virgilanthony (talk) I am sure that the 2011 census does not contradict the 54 000 mark. Feel free to find it and prove me wrong."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1126519191 by Virgilanthony (talk) nope, because the official number could be given only by Albania, the state where ethnic Greeks lives. His number are OFFICIAL. Do you understand what this means?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1126518368 by Virgilanthony (talk) it does not work this way. The official information must be presented always as first, then the various estimates. The 200,000 is still there."
 * 4)  "Refrain from doing what you did last time."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1126517436 by Virgilanthony (talk) your personal opinion about the census doesn't matter. The source clearly mention that it "is difficult to say how many ethnics Greeks there are in Albania". You cannot put down an official information just beacuse you don't like it. You are disruptive editing."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1126517436 by Virgilanthony (talk) your personal opinion about the census doesn't matter. The source clearly mention that it "is difficult to say how many ethnics Greeks there are in Albania". You cannot put down an official information just beacuse you don't like it. You are disruptive editing."

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

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

Comments:

Editor has returned to edit-warring over the infobox figure for the number of Albanains in Greece. I thought we'd reached consensus on this last month at Talk:Greeks and Talk:Greeks. NebY (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * for a week, in full, so presumably this can be further hashed out on the talk page. Fortunately for Fierakui, this action was taken shortly after his third revert. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We have to hope it will be. The protection came a bit later than that, maybe prompted by an ANI report rather than these ones, and by then the two editors had made 36 edits between them, almost all reverts. NebY (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The protection came nine minutes after the revert. That's within my definition of "shortly". Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mmm nine minutes but after FierakuiVërtet's seventh edit marked as "undid revision" in four hours ,, and at least some of their other ten edits in that time qualified too . The other editor's actions were similar, but this one had already been blocked for edit-warring back in October so it was sad to watch the editwarring continue for three hours and 22+ edits after they'd both been warned and then notified of these reports. NebY (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... I thought his name was familiar, and it turns out I was the one who had blocked him in October. Like I said, he is fortunate that the page was protected when it was. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

User: 2a00:23c7:2b86:9801:0000:0000:0000:0000/64 reported by User:Shibbolethink (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 09:50, 11 December 2022
 * 2) 09:53, 11 December 2022
 * 3) 10:05, 11 December 2022
 * 4) 12:28, 11 December 2022
 * 5) 15:31, 11 December 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:31, 11 December 2022 plus there's this entire AN discussion about this LTA's edit warring which links the 64 range together as mostly coming from the user formerly known as SchroCat

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:PermanentLink/1126893640 (diff)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 16:48, 11 December 2022

Comments:

This user has been warned many times about edit-warring, but has done it despite all this in order to restore their preferred versions of their favorite articles, of which this is one such example. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * since they reverted six times in the last 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Higg27 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have very strong suspicions that this is a block evasion by, who has been blocked for doing the exact same thing again and again, removing a category on Final Fantasy XVI. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 03:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

User:WWE Lover Fan Forever reported by User:Czello (Result: page block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:



— Czello 08:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

User has also deleted other users' talk page comments and also engaged in personal attacks. — Czello 11:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WWE Lover Fan Forever has been blocked indefinitely from Professional wrestling as well as its talkpage for edit warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC).

User:Tree Critter reported by User:Ippantekina (Result: 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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: Though I tried to resolve the conflict by presenting my arguments at the talk page this editor seems to not understand (or at least ignore) my explanations, and went on to revert back their edits. In this case, I and explained to them that the reliability of the source in question (Apple Music) should be examined thoroughly before use, but they somehow did not take our explanations into consideration. The same thing happened at the article Lavender Haze, for which the use of another source (All Music) is being discussed at Talk:You Belong with Me, but things happened exactly the same.. And this editor also assumed a passive-aggressive manner, as seen through their edit summaries. Ippantekina (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Freoh reported by User:Jtbobwaysf (Result: Stale; malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

User Freoh is undergoing apparent WP:SEALION on an array of pages. I first noticed it at Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk and then took a look at the user's edits on a few other articles, and noted he is in similar battles with editors on those talk pages. Most seem to be related to adding WP:FRINGE interpretations and repeated (again and again) violations of WP:BRD. Freoh is a somewhat new editor and I have held off on this per WP:BITE, but left a message on my talk page today also conveying they felt it had gone on too long as well. I would say the user has had some support from other users

9 December 2022 8 December 2022 7 December 2022
 * curprev 16:00, 10 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 125,131 bytes +1‎  →‎top: avoid contrasting republicanism with slavery undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 15:53, 10 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 125,130 bytes +412‎  →‎Ratification of the Constitution: contrast democracy with republicanism undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 18:46, 9 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 124,642 bytes +416‎  re-add maintenance tags; please seek consensus in the talk page undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 01:59, 9 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 124,076 bytes +168‎  →‎Slavery: maintenance tags undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 01:14, 9 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,908 bytes −278‎  Undid revision 1126108314 by Freoh (talk) as requested in talk undothank Tag: Undo
 * curprev 14:22, 8 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 124,074 bytes +513‎  →‎Memorials: add JMM HS note undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 13:59, 8 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,561 bytes −9‎  →‎Slavery: more neutral wording undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 13:23, 8 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,570 bytes −79‎  →‎Slavery: removed bit about Madison's cruelty not being "excessive" - feel free to re-add if you can say this objectively and neutrally undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 13:12, 8 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,649 bytes +53‎  →‎Slavery: re-worded to match source better, avoid contrasting republicanism with slavery undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 23:28, 7 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 123,596 bytes +243‎  →‎Ratification of the Constitution: avoid scare quotes, as per MOS:QUOTEPOV undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 15:42, 7 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 122,970 bytes +278‎  →‎Ratification of the Constitution: reverting Federalist 10 discussion with Feldman citation undothank Tags: Reverted 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 20:42, 5 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 122,189 bytes +126‎  →‎Ratification of the Constitution: restored maintenance templates - please seek WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
 * curprev 07:28, 4 December 2022‎ Freoh talk contribs‎ 121,517 bytes +107‎  →‎Ratification of the Constitution: cleanup templates undothank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

Freoh was warned by back in August for a 3RR on Democracy and again by me in December on Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. It doesnt seem to me that any change any behavior has come about, other than to an increase in what I view as WP:SEALION. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Comments:


 * Not sure why I was notified of this discussion, since I am not a party to the editing history at the article or the debate on this article's Talk page and, as noted, my only contact with Freoh an EW3 warning and followup discussion still available for review on that editor's Talk page  concerned a different page 4 months ago.  General Ization  Talk </i> 03:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This report is both stale and malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Shadowwarrior8 reported by User:Ecrusized (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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:

Violation of 1RR. No response to the dispute resolution at article talk page. No response to the 1RR violation warning at their talk page. Ecrusized (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User was warned by five other users for adding original research, , , content and making personal attacks. Ecrusized (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC) Shadowwarrior8 has self reverted. It would still be appropriate for an administrator to inspect Shadowwarrior8's edits as they seem keen to continue reverting once 24 hours has passed, without citing sources. As I have stated above Shadowwarrior8 was warned by multiple users about original research yet still continues to add it. Ecrusized (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Shadowwarrior has self-reverted. No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 It seems Ecrusized is unfortunately in a hurry to make ad-hominem attacks against me; by having no respect for the disputing editor aggressively mining against me years back and doing everything to not discuss the topic at hand.
 * Just to clarify regarding my erroneous conduct in that 1 edit :
 * I only wanted a genuine discussion in a positive, academic tone; which the aggressive nature of the account's response in the talk page alarmed me. Hence, I immediately reverted their edit which i deemed unconstructive here . ( and since it was spontaneous I forgot 1R/24 hr policy in the Template page)
 * But this doesnt mean I wasnt responding in the talk with the account. Rather I was posting my response here | which was posted at 13:53. (a response with sources). They notified all their warnings, reports quickly and agressively in a span of around 6 minutes without giving me time for my response. Their report was posted at 13:50; (when I was writing my response in the talk page).
 * Even in their latest response in talk; | they dont seem to care about any sources; rather than aggressively throwing wild accusations and making ad-hominem Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with the user beyond the now-removed violation of 1RR, you need to take those issues to a different noticeboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:165.140.54.22 reported by User:Trainsandotherthings (Result: /29 range blocked for 3 months)
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: There's been no discussion. I have not made any reverts personally.

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

Comments:


 * Now continuing to edit as . – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 16:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/165.140.54.16/29 rangeblocked 3 months by Favonian. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 18:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Bicepcurls200 reported by User:Stevie fae Scotland (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Version from December 6 before any edit warring Version from December 11 before 3RR violation

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

It was not brought up on the article talk page but has been brought up on the project page

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

Comments:

The users only contributions to date have been to remove this information from the template above and the parent article despite a reliable source being provided. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They are still reverting on the article and have made no reply to multiple attempts to reason with them. REDMAN 2019  ( talk )  21:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * due to making 8 reverts in the last couple of days. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Elmenhorster reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "His views on debt were removed without explanation; also Wikipedia does not pre-judge subjects' views as conspiracy theories, or co-mingle them; Reuss has a set of views that are perfectly legal to hold; monarchism is not a conspiracy theory"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1127103994 by JayBeeEll (talk)If you disagree about inclusion, seek consensus on Talk; it was included long before you came around to edit this article"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1127099886 by JayBeeEll (talk)1st minute of the Youtube video of his Zurich speech (0:49)"
 * 4)  "Guys, flat tax is important; second, it is said by him in his Zurich speech (I'm pretty sure - this factoid was properly referenced from the very start of this article, more or less)"
 * 1)  "Guys, flat tax is important; second, it is said by him in his Zurich speech (I'm pretty sure - this factoid was properly referenced from the very start of this article, more or less)"
 * 1)  "Guys, flat tax is important; second, it is said by him in his Zurich speech (I'm pretty sure - this factoid was properly referenced from the very start of this article, more or less)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: JBL/JayBeeEll did not try to resolve the issue on the Talk page (which was their responsibility); I started a topic for them there and look forward to their responses.Elmenhorster (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Still no response. Elmenhorster (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I've been on Wikipedia long and this is the first time I got reported. Seems the other party feels very strongly about the subject of flat tax and whether an alleged coup mastermind can hold bona-fide views on economics, and that Wikipedia should say it about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmenhorster (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that the reverts above are not comprehensive since Elmenhorster is almost surely the same person as 213.203.182.254, see and the discussion here where they participate together. --JBL (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also relevant: their problems with edit-warring are not restricted to one article, at Mikhail Fridman over the last two days we have 10 December 09:56, 10 December 14:52, 11 December 18:19, 12 December 17:19 -- not a 3RR violation, but unambiguous edit-warring. --JBL (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverts on Mikhail Fridman led to me being proven right (see Talk on Mikhail Fridman article earlier today) after mediation by a more experienced Wikipedia editor. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a rather novel reading of a discussion in which you started by casting aspersions and (seemingly) still fail to understand WP policy and it's application with respect to the differences in basic meaning between the content of the sources and what you wrote (which was overlooked by the 3rd party). wjematherplease leave a message... 15:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I remember it was you who ran into trouble with another (more experienced) editor about your possible whitewashing (his words).
 * Aspersion you're referring to was literally 2 words: "Odd, no?" Elmenhorster (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are posting using 2 alliases: JBL and JayBeeEll. JayBeeEll seems to have a history (on their Talk page) of aggressive editing that has led to a few disputes in the past. Elmenhorster (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, he isn't posting using 2 alliases, that is his signature. Chip3004 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh...ok, thanks. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please address your Talk page history and why you seem to be receiving near-constant backlash for your aggressive editing tactics? Elmenhorster (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Daily reminder 2: you still have not engaged with the discussion on the article's Talk page. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Third-party comment: has not been on Wikipedia terribly long. However, they have managed to decided "blanking thee but not me" is an appropriate strategy, particularly for removing reliable sourcing identifying the subject of the debated article as antisemitic. I think Elmenhorster should receive a slap on the wrist for WP:SOAPBOXing and edit warring, but anything more would be excessive towards a new editor that could learn from these mostly trivial mistakes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's actually way more than that -- since I filed this report, they've done some Jew-tagging and some antisemitism apology (also a feature of their edits at the Reuss page, as you note). I felt like it would be poor form to open an ANI report while this is still waiting for administrator attention, but this editor should not be allowed here. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If admin attention isn't given within the next couple hours, this is plenty for a full ANI. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am Jewish. I have done a great deal of "Jew-tagging" on Wikipedia before I registered. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that my edits have had nothing to do with Jews or anti-Semitism on Reuss article. On its Talk page I did say in the context of another topic-discussion that none of the references back Reuss being anti-Semitic, which is true. One reference, maybe same Reuters, says, in a veiled way, he used anti-Semitic trope, but noone has been able to locate what it is yet; in the Zurich speech he does not mention Jews even once. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am happy to see you are completely twisting the facts. Anybody can see following your own link my edit had nothing to do with anti-Semitism or apologizing for it. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked you to clarify your baseless accusation on the article's Talk page but you are still to respond. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that the edit warring continued following the initial report, and I've added another diff above. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My edit stands, having been reviewed by many other users, and it is literally one sentence on Reuss economic views referenced from Reuters. Elmenhorster (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have initiated a thread at ANI in case anyone who commented here wishes to comment there. It is Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.  --JBL (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * – User:Elmenhorster 31 hours for edit warring at Heinrich Reuss. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User:TurkicEtymology reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: Indef)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 1127270580 by Semsûrî (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1127270420 by Semsûrî (talk)Explain why an unofficial survey from 1998 = today's modern population? Just stop."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1127270256 by Semsûrî (talk)?"
 * 4)  "Source is from 1998 and unreliable, you can't just use a survey from 25 years ago and try pass it as the city's current demographics."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1127268424 by Semsûrî (talk) Not every URL = reliable source fyi"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1127267851 by Semsûrî (talk) You are the one unwilling to explain why it deserves to be there when I clearly and concisely explain why it doesn't, you take it to the talk page."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1127267110 by Semsûrî (talk) I just explained what is wrong with it. The first source was by someone who referred to the area as Kurdistan even after 1923, and second was by someone was dozens of papers with the sole purpose of bashing Turkey. Sources are meant to be reliable and content is supposed to be relevant."
 * 8)  "/* Demographics */ For concision. Was completely irrelevant to the city, more relevant to Edessa if anything. On top of that, both sources were extremely unreliable and biased. Since when do city pages contain "demographic history" of their predecessors anyway? Keep it on their main page."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Semsûrî, don't add two reports for the same user. Yes, TurkicEtymology should be blocked (indefinitely, as everything about the user screams WP:NOTHERE), but you should have filed one report and mentioned the edit warring in both articles. Edit warring reports are for users, not for articles. Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * – by User:El C for ethno-nationalist battleground editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Jattlife121 reported by User:113.193.45.26 (Result: Page protected)
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]

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

Comments: I asked user Jattlife121 multiple times to stop reverting edits that they don't like but the user is keep removing contents by giving baseless comments. I suspect they are here to promote Amritpal_Singh_Khalsa and related articles by adding biased content using unreliable sources. 113.193.45.26 (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the user accused me of citing "false sources" without providing any evidence Diff. 113.193.45.26 (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * "Amritpal Singh Sandhu (born 1993) is a Khalistani separatist who is known for spreading hatred towards Hindu and Christian communities. He currently heads the Waris Punjab De, an organisation founded by Punjabi actor, lawyer and Khalistan sympathizer Deep Sidhu. Sandhu was based in Dubai where he had been working as dispatcher in the family-owned transport business. He returned to Punjab, India months after the death of Deep Sidhu and joined Waris Punjab De. He is the 2nd and current leader of the Punjabi-centric social organisation, Waris Panjab De" - Hi wikipedia, this user made this edit ? is this appropriate. This is complete vandalising of the page, he has been told of many times for poor use of grammar and using bias as shown above. He changes his IP address to get his way. We need the page to be extended protected to stop vandalisim. Jattlife121 (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Also keep accusing me of "vandalism" for my valid and sourced edits diff this is harassing. 113.193.45.26 (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

They again accused me of vandalim on Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 and I'm not able to reply there so I would reqeust admins to take strict action on his repeat harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.193.45.26 (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all, my IP has been changed due to server rest. I notice this user used canned edit summary to remove the same contents they don't like. I asked them not to remove sourced contents yesterday but I don't see any success on that (diff of canned edit summary). Their behavior is selective that can be verified through their comments on their talk page. Thanks 1.23.250.183 (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Sir, can someone please tell this gentleman to stop bullying me? He's now personally attacking me by mocking me for my English skills (this is not the first time) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jattlife121&diff=prev&oldid=1127388824]. I don't appreciate his constant harassment sorry. 1.23.250.183 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Stop lying, you aren't making the correct edits using correct english grammar. I have changed them multiple times and you are reversing edits made on the article. You have constantly been harassing me on other articles such as the Jagraj one. You have serious issues and I recommend that the admin looks into your account. Jattlife121 (talk) 12:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can keep reporting me, I've done nothing against the rules. You throw your toys out of the pram when you can't get your way. I've clearly highlighted to you where your English has been applied incorrectly but your stubbornness to remove it is deeply concerning.
 * You have constantly vandalised the article, you claim to respect wikipedia neutrality but include buzz words which goes against these terms of policies. Not only that, you come onto this page for edit warring and constantly harass the admin with false statements against me. You made a wikipedia account one day ago and spam edits out of nowhere, now you have a whole new IP Address so you can start from scratch. Seriously, grow up ! Jattlife121 (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank God you are finally here. So first of all, I correctly removed unreliable sources from Jagraj Singh as per WP:RS and WP:RSP (diff) but you reverted my edit so I had to undo your addition of unreliable sources in the same article. The notability of Jagraj Singh is also questionable and Draft:Jagraj Singh was declined in October by user User:DoubleGrazing. You have not yet provided any evidence of my wrong English but keep harassing me even here on this page. You failed to provide any evidence of my edits that you believe are "vandalism" but keep accusing me so I request you again please provide evidence where I made spam edits, vandalism, or spelling mistakes and if you can't provide any evidence I would like you to apologize. 1.23.250.183 (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They were reliable sources. You obvious have been looking through my edits and deliberately harassing me because you can't get your way. The notability is questionable, lol what. He's literally respected by every Sikh worldwide. He started the biggest sikh platform and is known by Sikh organisations to be one of the pioneers in the 21st century. You need to stop your anti-sikh remarks. It's obvious you are constantly attacking Sikh related pages when your IP is in southern india (a non-sikh area). I am concerned Wikipedia is allowing an account like yours to be on here when you've got an Anti-Sikh Agenda. I literally gave you the spelling mistakes stop with blatant lies. You couldn't even spell controversies properly and you acknowledged it. You couldn't even spell Bhindranwale properly yet you still reverse the edits. Your first edit on the Amritpal article was this "Amritpal Singh Sandhu (born 1993) is a Khalistani separatist who is known for spreading hatred towards Hindu and Christian communities. He currently heads the Waris Punjab De, an organisation founded by Punjabi actor, lawyer and Khalistan sympathizer Deep Sidhu. Sandhu was based in Dubai where he had been working as dispatcher in the family-owned transport business. He returned to Punjab, India months after the death of Deep Sidhu and joined Waris Punjab De. He is the 2nd and current leader of the Punjabi-centric social organisation, Waris Panjab De". < do you think this is appropiate to edit on a wikipedia article. I am very confident Wikipedia will be taking down your account and making this an extended protected article soon.
 * Your anti-Sikh agenda is kinda obvious and you're aren't the only one on wikipedia. I have even included and removed any glorification of individuals on the article yet you have still put bias words and remarks. You seriously need to get a life and do something productive with your day. Jattlife121 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Admins I can't take this harassment anymore so I won't be replying to his comments. His comments above prove he has a selective point of view. I would finally request an admin to review their edits as they keep citing unreliable sources and removing sourced information such as these edits at Sikhism in the United Kingdom. If any admin has a question for me please feel free to ask and I'll reply as soon as possible. Thank you 1.23.250.183 (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly you are clutching at straws. Absolutely pathetic. You do realise there was a 2021 Census in the UK, therefore the information I removed was relating to 2011 which is now in table form. Also the 2021 was census information was updated using the official gov census statistics. The pathetic attempt to highlight perfectly fine edits just shows your agenda. Secondly, The British Sikh Report edit was removed because it has been referenced in this wikipedia article over 15 times. You say I have a selective point of view a) I make edits on Sikh pages b) I told you to make a controversies section which a well respected wikipedia editor has made changes saying you went against their terms of policy for neutral point of view for the words "neutral" and "distasteful". They also said your formatting was wrong which is was clearly edited by myself before you reversed it. Therefore, you have been proven wrong. c) Selective point of view is a joke. I told you to make a controversy section. I've even contributed to that section myself. Your first edit on that article was a complete mess as per the quoted sentence above. Stop with the lies and nonsense. I've had enough and so have other wikipedia editors. Jattlife121 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have to tolerate you anymore. Regarding Sikhism in the United Kingdom article, You made around 15 edits to the article but you did not update the page with the latest information nor provided a single reliable source instead you removed a bunch of information along with official reliable sources without any explanation. If something has changed you don't need to remove it but update it with sources. Regarding the use of the word "radical" I still don't agree with user Czello who removed the word stating "NPOV" the word is widely used on Wikipedia and is important to clarify what kind of remarks the subject has made. Just saying "remarks" does not make any sense. Regarding my first edit on the article, it was well sourced and the statements I added are widely published in major news platforms. Your comment above that "your IP is in southern india (a non-sikh area), I am concerned Wikipedia is allowing an account like yours to be on here when you've got an Anti-Sikh Agenda." clearly shows your selective point of view and is disrespectful. What do you mean by a non-Sikh area? what you are trying to say? 1.23.250.183 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * STOP LYING. Honestly, are you normal or something. I made 15 edits. I can list every single one of them out if you want. I literally gave you National Gov Stastics. The edit I made today was from 2011 to 2021 as there was a new 2021 Census. You are a lost cause honestly. You just constantly lie through your teeth on wikipedia. Seek help my friend. Czello, proved you wrong on both edits. "remarks" is more than fine, it's because your English grammar in that paragraph was completely worded wrong. Therefore, your ability to use certain words without the meaning of them is concerning.
 * Yes, you are obviously have come on wikipedia to antagonise Sikhs. It is more than likely, you are a non-sikh yourself. I could tell from the way you disrespected Jagraj Singh. Not one Sikh on this earth has a bad thing to say about him. Now, have a good day and seek help because you need it.
 * Good luck. This is the last time I am responding you and wikipedia knows who's in the right anyway. My account would have been blocked by now + stop lying on here. It's not good. Jattlife121 (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you list just one edit you made on Sikhism in the United Kingdom where you added a single reliable source instead of removing information without an explanation? Here is the list of your 15 edits on that page. I'm a Sikh or a non-Sikh that is not your business nor do I have to prove my faith to you. Everyone has equal rights to improve Wikipedia it's not anyone's personal property. I would have nominated the article Jagraj Singh for deletion but unfortunately, the nomination namespace is protected to logged-in users only. That article contains no real source that supports notability under WP:N and that was the reason why User:DoubleGrazing declined the submission. 113.193.45.185 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop being ridiculous, you are a liar and manipulative person spreading fake information to admins to try and tarnish my account and contributions. Wikipedia requires a minimum of three sources for an article. Jagraj Singh's article has plenty of credible sources. You've obviously done this to antagonise myself. Nothing will happen to the Jagraj Singh, Wikipedia page. The sources are perfectly fine. Also other admins have checked and made some edits already. The first draft of Jagraj Singh, had a lack of sources, therefore this time I have included them.
 * Sikhs in UK Edits (now what sources do i need to provide lol. I've listed them all now and exposed your lies. Admins can see for themself):
 * 1) Edit on 4th December: I updated the information as per the 2021 Census of Sikhs in the UK as at 524,140 (the source is not required for the table) as this number is referenced earlier in the page.
 * 2) Edit on 4th December: The number wouldn't update correctly on Wikipedia and appeared as blank.
 * 3) Edit on 4th December: The revision was still blank
 * 4) Edit on 4th December: The edit of census number in table didn't work so I just undid everything.
 * 5) Edit on 11th December: The 2011 census data had been removed as there was a UK census for 2021 providing religious statistics. The info therefore was used in the table and 2021 information has been written out.
 * 6) Edit on 11th December: Basics of Sikhi (it is also a registered charity) has been included and replaced by City Sikhs (works as a professional sikh business org, not specifically on sikh issues)
 * 7) Edit on 11th December: Pictures have been reduced as it included the same individual multiple times posted by the same wikipedia account. Obviously highlighting bias.
 * 8) Edit on 11th December: Picture I initially used was too big therefore it had to be changed to thumb to make it smaller. This is to do with Kirpan laws in the UK and is a free image from wikipedia commons.
 * 9) Edit on 11th December: Kirpan picture now used from wikipedia commons ( no source needed)
 * 10) Edit on 11th December: I removed 2011 census pictures as this is misleading and doesn't align with the 2021 census data in the article.
 * 11) Edit on 11th December: I used my own picture i created myself and uploaded to wiki commons for the geographical distribution of sikhs in the UK.
 * 12) Edit on 11th December: I had to shift the picture to the correct spot edit.
 * 13) Edit on 11th December: Update to spelling.
 * 14) Edit on 13th December: British Sikh report has been referenced an extraordinary amount of times in the article. I minimised this when repeated twice in same paragraph or as an when necessary. No new info was added.
 * 15) Edit on 13th December: I updated Slough for 2021 census as it said 2011.
 * Now, as i have proven you lied. Tell me where what information i have included need sources or what sources have actually been removed. Now stop this nonsense. Jattlife121 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to keep pinging me, I'm not involved with this. Ta, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to explain why you removed the information without adding additional details along with the sources. You removed a lot of sourced content that could have been updated instead see here and then you failed to provide a citation for your changes in this edit? FYI if other editors made changes to a page that does not make the subject notable. 113.193.45.185 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The second point, the table doesn't have sources as the number is referenced earlier as I said. The number of UK Sikhs in 2021 is already mentioned. No second source is required. Also the 2011 info, that has been replaced with is the source of the UK official government statistics. What type of second source in more credible than the government census stats ? If you have the govermennt sources for a census you don't need 2,3,4 more. Look at other countries. Honestly, its like talking to a toddler. Jattlife121 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you find it difficult to understand how census data works, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_Canada - There is ONLY 2021 data mentioned in the introduction, Old information is used in the table form as a way of compare different periods. Why on earth you would make an introduction with old data is beyond me. Also look at the source. Official Canada Gov Census data. Only one is required. Give it a rest lol. Jattlife121 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: The page in dispute, Amritpal Singh Khalsa, is fully protected three days. These editors both seem inexperienced. If it weren't for that, blocks for both users would have been logical. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely, making this extended protected would be better going forwards in regards to the edits. Jattlife121 (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to choose between the two of you to see who is worse at following our policies. An EC protection would stop the IP but allow you to continue making your own changes. You question the anonymous editor because 'your IP is in southern india (a non-sikh area).' Another option for the closing admin would have been blocking you for personal attacks on this very noticeboard ('seek help because you need it', 'liar', 'toddler'). EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone has constantly berated me and claimed I didn't do something when I did and proved them wrong is not fair to use the context of "liar". Especially when his whole agenda is to take down my account. I told him to seek help, because he is constantly reporting my account, as per above claiming X and Y when I listed out every edit I made on that page. Also, the context of Sikh area is in fair regards considering his edits were heavily one sided despite myself adding to a controversies section. Obvious, it comes to a point where I am frustrated when he someone is making accusations against me to block my account especially when they are false. Jattlife121 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone has made an edit on a page calling a person "anti hindu and anti christian" by vandalising it, is that not a personal attack. Considering to another community, by many he is held in high regard. Jattlife121 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User:AMomen88 reported by User:A.Musketeer (Result: Block, Warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""Undid revision 1127275852 by LucrativeOffer (talk) The status quo ante bellum should be maintained until consensus is met on the talk page. I have decided not to add content, you should do the same while discussion continues on the talk page Please refrain from taking premature unilateral measures."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1127230512 by LucrativeOffer (talk) consensus has not been reached"
 * 3)  "Reverted to status quo ante bellum, contentious edits under discussion on talk page"
 * 4)  "removed POV cited with opinion pieces which are not reliable sources"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments: User has been edit warring to remove sourced content critical of the subject. A warning has been posted in his talk page while a discussion has been started but didn't stop the edit war by the user. Additionally, the user has also been making personal attacks against other editors. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The edit war began when LucrativeOffer removed my cited content and added material which was bias as it was derived from opinion pieces. I did not remove the content because it was critical of the subject, in fact if you read my edit summaries I have stated on numerous occasions there should be negative content about the subject, but it should be balanced. I have not made personal attacks against any users I have criticised the nature of the edits the said user made. The attached reversions I made were after the talk page discussion began, I reverted the article to its state prior to when me and the said user edited it until after the discussion on the talk page concluded. It seems odd reporting me for edit warring when LucrativeOffer has done the same and has reverted the cited content I inserted on moot grounds. An ongoing discussion is occurring on the talk page, everyone is welcome to comment.—AMomen88 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for edit warring. User:AMomen88 has removed material several times but these removals are not protected by any exception to the edit warring policy. User:LucrativeOffer is warned to observe WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The modification is arbitrarily cancelled by Mr. Bitton without any concrete explanation. The mention of the Tbourida inscription (which is the performance of the Fantasia, subject of this article) exists in the majority of the other versions of the same article, and it is essential that a mention of such importance appears in the summary. I invite those who do not necessarily agree with this to share their reasoning with us so that we can better understand and arrive at an unbiased solution)"
 * 2)  "Hello. I reorganized the countries' order since an alphabetical order makes more sense. But I don't think why shouldn't a crucial information figure on the summary? It does for other languages such as French, Arabic & German, why not in the English version. Have a good night, and once again if you're not okay with it request a 3rd party commentary."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1127261488 by M.Bitton (talk) Hello again. We can request a 3rd party opinion if you think this is POV. I believe that a very important information should figure on the page's summary."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1125398920 by M.Bitton (talk) Because the UNESCO inscription wasn't in the summary (the part that 99% of Wikipedia readers read of an article) like the same Wikipedia page in other languages. This is completely unbiased, but Morocco should be the first mentionned as it is recognized by UNESCO, the largest and most reputatable organization in these matters as Moroccan. Please do not start an unnecessary editing war."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:M.Bitton#Fantasia

Comments:
 * Fully aware of what edit warring is (see their first edit summary), they continued to revert after blanking the 3R warning on their talk page, while pretending to ask questions on my talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't be surprised if they're using an open proxy or vpn (given that they're obviously not new). M.Bitton (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I feel that what I was trying to do was a BLD, but you were far from collaborative, although I think you were acting with good intent and misunderstood the meaning of my edit.
 * I openly admit that I am acting on Wikipedia in an effort to preserve my country's culture and heritage, but I do not do so under any circumstances without using irrefutable sources. The cancellation of your recurring edits was in no way abusive in my opinion, but it was an attempt to discuss and exchange in order to come to a solution that suits the users of Wikipedia, and that will allow the readers to get a MAXIMUM of information from the article - To do this, it is essential to put the crucial information (objectively) in the summary of the article, which is the part most consulted by the readers and which allows these readers to form an idea Elkhiar (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * BRD* Elkhiar (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you know about WP:BRD too (something you clearly weren't interested in when you were edit warring to push your country's interest). M.Bitton (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, how is it possible for you to know if I know something or not? Why are you making this assumption with such confidence? Elkhiar (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You mentioned edit warring (in your first edit summary) and BRD (above). It's fair to assume that you knew both right at the start (quite an achievement for someone who theoretically has made 5 edits). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned edit warring. It is clear that it is now impossible to collaborate with you. While waiting for the moderators' answer, have a nice evening. Elkhiar (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not start an unnecessary editing war. is what you wrote in your first edit summary. It directly contradicts this lie. M.Bitton (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you mind having a look at this case? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * – User:Elkhiar 24 hours for edit warring. User:M.Bitton, when you post on a noticeboard and accuse someone of lying it may attract unfavorable attention. In future please consider some other form of words. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did it because they were denying it despite the evidence, but sure, I will consider other forms from now on. Many thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Mishary94 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Go to page talk first"
 * 1)  "Go to page talk first"
 * 1)  "Go to page talk first"
 * 1)  "Go to page talk first"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on FIFA World Cup records and statistics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */"
 * 3)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */"
 * 4)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */ Reply"
 * 5)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */ Reply"
 * 6)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */ Reply"
 * 7)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */ Reply"
 * 8)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */ Reply"
 * 9)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */ Reply"
 * 10)   "/* Excessive records / lack of sources */"

Comments:

persistent reverts in violation of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:LISTCRIT Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

User:24.114.29.178 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Pblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1127699944 by LilianaUwU (talk) Disruptive edit caused by this user, unexplained deletion. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1127699764 by SnapSnap (talk) "In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.""
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1127699150 by LilianaUwU (talk)"This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.""
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1127698708 by LilianaUwU (talk) Unexplained deletion, "in popular culture is the worst" is not a reason"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1015300969 by SnapSnap (talk), Section of important information constantly being deleted by this user without reason."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated attempts to insert a In popular culture section against consensus and MOS:TRIVIA. Liliana UwU (talk / contribs) 05:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * PBlocked from that article for a month. They may still use the talkpage.  Edit-warring is one thing, but edit-warring to reinsert completely unsourced material is quite another. Black Kite (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Jatlin1 reported by User:HAL333 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First revert (misleadingly marked as minor)
 * 2) Second revert (misleadingly marked as minor)
 * 3) Third revert
 * 4) Fourth revert
 * 5) Fifth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's complicated and spanning multiple talk sections, just visit Talk:Elon Musk

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

Comments:

Jatlin1 has been disruptive and uncivil on Musk pages, and has been warned by an Admin. Users, , and I have tried discussing with them, to little avail. It's out of control. They have also been editing archives and canvassing. Please address this. Thanks, ~ HAL  333  05:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The account also appears to be a WP:SPA, based on a quick look at their contribs. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the concerns of WP:SPA and apply them to me with arguments and evidence. I have never violated the concerns of WP:SPA . Mind also Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. Jatlin1 (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * HAL333, how are you judging my very first edits so badly? It is true that I called these "minor edits", and that was not appropriate. However, in accordance with what a minor edit is, adding "in the light of the Canda convoy protest" didn't change the meaning of the text in any way - it arguably actually is a minor edit. Mind WP:BITE though. But I have no idea what your actual problem about the edits are. I thought we had agreed on the first one since QRep2020 linked me a page from the archive where you had agreed on a piece of text that includes the context about the Canada convoy protest - yet you revert my edits, so apparently we haven't agreed, true. But why are you refusing to enter a dialogue? If you don't make any arguments, you have no weight in the consensus anyway. So the problem points back at you. The second revert was good-faith work by Anythingyouwant whose edit was reverted without any comment which violates WP:TALKDONTREVERT. I have also brought the issue of this story up on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#Replace_%22highly_polazring%22_with_%22highly_discussed%22_and_remove_extremely_trivial_story as "remove extremely trivial story" where no one commented it! I have made an entire thread about the problem which the third revert deals with which includes a user who was alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#%22[...]_along_with_deleting_his_responses_to_critical_tweets_from_Cher_Scarlett_[...]%22_is_not_backed_up_by_any_sources - why aren't you willing to enter a dialogue? I would suggest you once again to read WP:TALKDONTREVERT before reverting my good-faith work. Once again the problem points back at you. I was explaining my revert of the fourth edit too. Did you read it? I have also commented the thread now and explained the the fourth edit is a clear violation of WP:PROPORTION . Why are you complaining about my edit with regards to entrepreneur and reverting it without any explanation? I have also made a thread about this on the talk page. Come to the talk page and let's talk about it, lol. The question is why you yourself consequently violates WP:TALKDONTREVERT Jatlin1 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I should probably refer to this instead of WP:TALKDONTREVERT from WP:EDITCON All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative explanations indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work.
 * HAL333, you consistently fail to live up to this, especially QRep2020 very rarely attempts to enter any dialogue. He has never expressed his opinion about the matter of any of these matters that you have raised except the matter of entreprenur where his contribution was worthless because he was doing original research. You should actually look into WP:TALKDONTREVERT which states The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. The problem is often he and you aren't even doing that, but reverting without saying anything. Jatlin1 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC).


 * Indefinitely blocked for more than just edit-warring at the Musk article. See other bases in the block log. For the record, though, Jatlin1 did not violate 3RR, as the list of diffs implies. They made three sets of consecutive edits to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Aristeus01 reported by User:Gyalu22 (Result: Blocked 7 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Version on 7 December 2022:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: User:Aristeus01 is continuously reverting restorations to pre-dispute state of the article, and prevents appropriate dispute resolution while he avoids a discussion that could achieve a consensus. He withdrew from both he had with me and User:OrionNimrod. He doesn't admit of breaking the 3RR and refers to his arguments for reverting, which are obviously not exemptions, nor looking valid for long detailed discourse he eschews. My change he tries to undo was declared and explained in the talk page and no editor opposed it. Aristeus01 similarly tried at many other Romanian-related topics, and this led him to confrontation with more editors, like User:Borsoka. See: and. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Aristeus01 seems to be waging a long term edit war. He wants to retain the section "Roman or romanized population" while others want to remove it. Arguments are provided on the talk page. Aristeus01 seems to believe he enjoys an exception to 3RR, which is not the case. I hope he'll respond here and explain why he should not be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 1 week. Aristeus01 was previously warned for persistent edit-warring at this noticeboard here and they have clearly not learned from that experience. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we could've been waiting for him a bit longer. I mean it's obvious that he started an edit war, but still... Gyalu22 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Freoh reported by User:Jtbobwaysf (Result: No violation; take to AN/I)
Page:

User being reported:

This is a re-file of the report submitted by Jtbobwaysf with links added as indicated by User:Bbb23 on his talk page updated by User:ErnestKrause. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Freoh, a new editor with a grand total of nearly 230 edits, is currently edit warring on the James Madison article and Talk page trying to force his edits into the article against Wikipedia policy for BRD. When he made a questionable edit of POV-pushing on 3 Dec here, he was then reverted by User:Dhtwiki here who invoked BRD against Freoh's edit requiring Talk page discussion. User:Freoh rejected the revert and began forcing template tags into the article here, apparently due to his edit fixation on "Howard Zinn"-related edits. During the edit warring template tagging made by User:Freoh against BRD, I then added by own revert in support of User:Dhtwiki here who first tried to justifiably start BRD, which User:Freoh again rejected here. As soon as I supported Dhtwiki, User:Freoh then again rejected BRD and continued edit warring on the James Madison article against Wikipedia policy for discussion first according to BRD, even after a third editor Jtbobwaysf had joined Dhtwiki on the Talk page to support him against User:Freoh's edit warring. The following is the long string of edit warring by User:Freoh made as part of his edit warring against User:Dhtwiki's request for BRD, as a long string of further edits all made against Wikipedia policy for BRD which requires consensus on Talk prior to any further edits.

In chronological order: , , , , , , , , , , , , and, .

User:Freoh has even continued edit warring against BRD after these examples since he appears to believe that Wikipedia policy for BRD does not apply to him. Now, User:Freoh has widened his edit warring to include the FAC page in progress for the James Madison article at this time, and User:Freoh is reverting edits made by consensus between reviewer and nominator on the FAC review page here. After looking at the Talk page of User:Freoh, it appears to look like a war zone, as if User:Freoh had set up his account for the sole purpose of edit warring on multiple Wikipedia articles. May I request someone to look into this edit warring by User:Freoh against Wikipedia policy for BRD currently taking place on the James Madison article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Most of these edits are not reverts. You are free to revert and discuss my content changes on the talk page. Some of these discussions are ongoing, and I think that the maintenance tags should remain until they're resolved. Freoh (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is any recent violation of anything here, it certainly is not 3RR and likely not EW, either, judging from the last couple of days of history. Freoh is correct that most of the changes he has recently made are not reverts. If you really feel that action needs to be taken, take this to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The edits demonstrate a pattern of WP:SEALION across a multitude of articles. Is AN/I a more appropriate venue for issues that are non 3RR? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:900A:1203:C3AD:8D6F:9250:4196:C9E reported by User:Izzy Moony (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I had reverted their initial PC edit on Scott Stapp initially due to what appeared to be original research, as they failed to indicate a source the first initial two times on revert. IP then decided to tell me to stop removing their addition in the article, to which I told them they could escalate this if I'm wrong in the edit summary As of last edit, they've readded the content without notifying of why again. I didn't want to revert further so I took it up here. Izzy Moony <sub style="color:#1c6eb0;">Hi new friend! 14:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The first of the reverts given above is actually the IP's original addition of the information, which doesn't count as a revert. Since the ensuing flurry of three reverts nine hours ago they have done no editing (I also don't see where in any edit summary or history they told you to stop). However, should they resume this another days, this assessment could change. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)