Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive463

User:2601:18C:8000:A5FD:358E:7D0E:AEA7:609A reported by User:WngLdr34 (Result: Rangeblocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._P._Hill&oldid=1127824042
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._P._Hill&oldid=1127819570
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._P._Hill&oldid=1127819570
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A._P._Hill&oldid=1127815885

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A._P._Hill#Hey_IP_address [diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:18C:8000:A5FD:358E:7D0E:AEA7:609A [diff]

'''Comments:This user is a clear political view, I have warned and tried but they are on the what, 6th revert? Thank you Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)'''

The big issue is the user has a political agenda, and is not using WP:NPOV on an already controversial issue. Grave desecration is a term fraught with political social and racial history, and if they had just put "Grave disinterment" it would not be as big of a deal. They are also not posting on the talk page at all, instead talking on the user pages to multiple users. There is a request to protect the page but the user is an issue as well. Thank you admins, and I hope I followed the template and rules correctly! Have a great day Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , the entire /64 range included. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Joaziela reported by User:TaivoLinguist (Result: Blocked)
Borscht:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Joaziela has clearly violated Wikipedia edit warring policy by persisting through the efforts of two established editors (myself and User:Kpalion) to remove the name "Ukraine" from the article. Despite repeated efforts to tell Joaiela to take the discussion to the Talk Page without edit warring, they have not done so. In their last edit summary, they overtly state that they are pushing an anti-Ukrainian agenda (through the use of "Bandera" and pushing the russian propaganda that Ukraine was an invention of the 20th century throughout every one of their preceding edit summaries). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , as much for OR and combativeness as for edit-warring.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

User:193.119.116.137 reported by User:Jameel the Saluki (Result: Blocked from article for a week; article semi-protected for three months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

It hasn't really blown up to be a full scale war yet, but the editor is being entirely uncommunicative. The edits that have been made by myself and another editor have listed the criteria as to why they were necessary. On both occassions there has been essentially a revert with no explanation provided at all. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * from the article for a week. Editor seems to have backed off from it; perhaps this will give them room to reflect and make more productive edits as they seem to have started to. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case, I noticed that a new IP, 124.168.229.4, has re-added the disputed content previously added by 193.119.116.137. The new IP just started editing today. There seems to be some, but not a lot, of overlap between the other articles edited by the two IPs. I'm not sure if this is block evasion or something else, but it seems peculiar. CodeTalker (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering that over the past several months this has been one of several IPs to show interest in making these edits about marsupials, another of which is also interested in the Spot (franchise) and all of which are also interested in genera and geolocate to the same area of southeastern Australia (though not always in the same state), I think we have some sort of LTA going on, and appropriately I have now semi-protected the page for six months. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Iptesh Kumar Meher reported by User:Belbury (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1127920251 by Belbury (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1127906050 by Sumanuil (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1127905703 by Sumanuil (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1127905877 by Sumanuil (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1127905877 by Sumanuil (talk)"

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

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

Comments:

Ongoing WP:OWNERSHIP issues from a user adding unsourced and tourist-style content to this article about a small town in India, and reverting all attempts to remove it (possibly all attempts by anyone else to edit the article at all, I've just had some trivial infobox edits undone as well). They were already blocked for this in March, other editors have tried to talk to them about their behaviour on their talk page, and the issue was raised again at ANI back in August (Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1106). Their edits have been confined to this one article, and a draft article about a hill in the town. Belbury (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked as a sock, although even without the socking, I would have indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

User:TSAR1984 reported by User:Silver seren (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: Editor is trying to remove all the instances of "she" on an article about a trans woman. They've reverted back to their version six times in the past two hours, despite multiple editors telling them not to. Silver seren C 18:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Salvio 19:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:MagellanAquarium reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "adding more content and references"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1128168297 by Roxy the dog (talk) which part is real estate agent material? The quoted sources are government websites like dallas city hall and national register of historic places"
 * 3)  "adding more content and references"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1128134209 by MrOllie (talk)not a copy and paste, selected certain info to be merged to an existing page and added new info."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Added New Content */"

Comments:

4 reverts today - removing the notability tag and repeatedly adding text. Continuation of editing starting from the 16th. MrOllie (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Salvio 21:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Cobalt47 reported by User:Alssa1 (Result: Page protected; Cobalt47 partially blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: most recent

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1st set of reversions: • • • • • 2nd set: • • • • • • Final large reversion: •

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:

Two years ago, this user Bobfrombrockley, and I had a bit of a back and forth on this article regarding this and similar issues. When asked to engage, he doesn't really engage with the nature of disputes, has a habit of hurling insults and copying the same comments back to those who make the initial comments. He also seems to ignore the WP:BRD despite it being highlighted to him. Alssa1 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Husesein07101 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: 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 Somalia."

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

Comments:

Report filed. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

...and they're still at it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Void if removed reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 08:14, 19 December 2022
 * 2) 11:10, 19 December 2022
 * 3) 14:10, 19 December 2022
 * 4) 19:36, 19 December 2022

User has also broken 3RR at

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

Comments:


 * Salvio 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Gorgon Slayer reported by User:JeffUK (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "What do you mean by " Reliable " Source ? Source that suits your opinion ? Who decided that "Proza.ru" is unreliable and those random articles in the page is reliable ? You ? Or those soviet communists ? Kindly use the Talk Page to clarify and provide refutations ( which is not available in this case ) before suppressing the truth."
 * 2)  "And for your information, " Proza.ru " is way reliable and logical than those " sources " in this page as It's solely based on logic and history rather than copying and pasting the same misinformation over and over again. Proza.ru is A Russian Source which points out self-contradictory claims in those articles that is cited as " source " here. Kindly read it before suppressing the truth and reverting the edit ."
 * 3)  "Source has been provided. Before removing any source, provide refutation (which is not available in this case) against information in the source rather than suppressing it."
 * 1)  "Source has been provided. Before removing any source, provide refutation (which is not available in this case) against information in the source rather than suppressing it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User_talk:Gorgon_Slayer Shows multiple previous warnings for both disruptive editing and edit warring.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Other users asked them to go to talk,[][] but they decided not to.

Comments:

User has previously been blocked for edit warring, so I don't know if a 'warning' is required in this instance. In the above article and multiple others in the same subject area[],[] [], User made a change, it was reverted, then they edit-warred that change back in, were asked by multiple editors to discuss changes on the talk page, but instead reported the other editor for vandalism []; this is disruptive. JeffUK (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Salvio 11:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Gun Nut perk reported by User:Hohum (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

User:ZaniGiovanni reported by User:Ecrusized (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

6 reverts in the past 24 hours. Accusing unregistered editors of being "IP editors". Accused me of having bad faith and called my changes "not an improvement". Ecrusized (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Also has been previously blocked for a week for personal attacks and has been warned by at least 5 other editors on their talk page for edit warring. ,, , ,. 09:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrusized (talk • contribs)


 * I didn't do 6 reverts, only these two, are my reverts in 24 hrs while the rest are my own edits mixed with partially removing IP edits. I didn't accuse OP of bad faith which they show no proof of, casting aspersions. I did explain in detail why their edit wasn't an improvement on the article and my talk. With their no consensus edits and edit-warring over them, they also hinder the current long ongoing discussion which tries to achieve consensus. Additionally, OP tried to AfD the article unsuccessfully and with subpar argumentation, and they're the one currently edit-warring over their own no consensus edit ,  while hindering the long discussion on talk that they haven't even commented on single time. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RR. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. You have been warned by 5 other editors besides myself about this but still seem to go on with battle ground behavior. Your reverts, whether involving the same or different material count as a revert. Ecrusized (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're showing warnings from random users from 2021 and completely irrelevant, unrelated to this article. And as I said, I reverted 2 times in the article in the past 24hrs, . My own edits aren't reverts as 4 of the diffs you show aren't even reverts , , , and the IP didn't re-revert me for there to be an edit-war.
 * Also you haven't participated once in the extensive discussion which directly touched on and tries to achieve consensus regarding parts of your own edits as well (where you were making factual errors and wrong attributions), which you edit-warred over with no consensus or the discussion participation. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni twice removed a reference to Jamnews, claiming it was an Azerbaijani source, which it is not. He made many other reverts on this same article. He was previously banned for 2 months from Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics. He was also formally warned to refrain from edit warring: Probably WP:AE is a more appropriate place to deal with this. Grand master  10:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus. Yes I did edits in the article, but editing isn't prohibited. I reverted 2 times in the past 24hrs. I also removed a "Jamnews" article which was published in Baku and had no third party backing the cited claim and was egregiously in Wiki voice. You adding it with no consensus is what's the problem, per WP:ONUS, and not providing any non Baku published third party in its place when kindly asked to do so. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish Baku claims in Wiki voice no less, especially for exceptional claims of "humanitarian aid" while the whole world condems Azerbaijan for blocking the corridor for a week now . And you were banned for 6 months from Armenia/Azerbaijan topic area this year, what's your point? What does you bringing up and browbeating me with the 2-month topic ban has to do with this report? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jamnews is an international publication. If it has reporters in Baku, that does not make it Azerbaijani, or unreliable. You cannot simply remove a source because you disagree with it. If you have objections to Jamnews as a source, the best is to bring it up at talk, not to remove it repeatedly. And that is not your only revert on that article within the last few days. You have been formally warned against edit warning in this topic area. Grand  master  10:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an exceptional article published in Baku. Nobody else makes such claim of "humanitarian aid" and no WP:RS does. In fact WP:RS are pretty clear that supplies in the region are lost or are running low due to the blockade, . You were adding "Jamnews" Baku published article, the WP:ONUS is clearly on you to achieve consensus when your edit or part of it was contested for being WP:UNDUE / having no WP:RS to back it up (WP:EXCEPTIONAL). And as I said, I reverted 2 times in the past 24 hours, my own edits aren't reverts. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, Jamnews is not published in Baku, it is an international publication. You have clearly violated the 3RR by these 4 reverts on 21 December (not counting previous ones):   . And that is despite previous warnings against edit warring and sanction for battleground behavior.  Grand  master  13:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only these, are my reverts in 24hrs, and the Baku edition of an article from "Jamnews" which it clearly indicates  you used adding the exceptional claim contrary to what most RS say. This is my own edit removing the source along with other source denying it, as the claim is UNDUE/Exceptional to begin with per most RS ,  clearly stating supplies are lost or are running short because of the blockade. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * . I am closing this report as stale, only because you both seem to have stopped reverting this morning. If not for that reason, I'd have p-blocked both and  for edit warring. Please, take this to the talk page or blocks will become necessary.  Salvio 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Pktlaurence reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Pktlaurence moved page Heinrich Reuss to Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss over redirect: Unexplained revert"
 * 2)  "Pktlaurence moved page Heinrich Reuss to Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss: His name should stay German but the title prince should be anglicised per convention, as this is English Wikipeidia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Within a few days after their last one-month block for edit-warring, this user is now move-warring on a page with an ongoing RM discussion. JBL (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That's bullshit, I didn't know what happened at all as you did not explain the reason of your revert, and you did not attempt to notify or communicate with me either. Now as I am notified I will not revert it again. BTW I have not breached the 3RR principle either so stop wasting the administrators' time.Pktlaurence (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My edit summary could not have been clearer. If you revert yourself I will be happy to withdraw this request. -- JBL (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I note that (1) Pktlaurence did not self-revert, and (2) instead endeavored to follow me to a different page I recently moved and to move it without discussion or explanation. It would be super convenient for me if any passing administrator could deal appropriately with that behavior; otherwise I can relocate ANI instead I guess  -- JBL (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And again I did explain. I cannot self-revert, but if you or some admin revert it I would be happy to see it stay the way it is. And again, 3RR. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And again, you didn't make any notifications or even explanation in your summary. 'JayBeeEll moved page Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss to Heinrich Reuss over redirect: revert. Pktlaurence' That's all I can see on the page move log. (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The RM discussion has concluded that the page title should be "Heinrich XIII Prinz Reuss". That's where the page is now. It seems possible that User:Pktlaurence was not aware of the RM discussion at the time they did the move. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah he didn't even explain in his summary. Pktlaurence (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Louis Waweru reported by User:Alcibiades979 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Second round: 

Third: 

Fourth: 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1st: 2nd:

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

Comments:

The user has also twice moved the page with no consensus. At this point its obvious this is edit warring so I'm not going to keep rolling back changes because I don't want to engage in this behaviour. But the page moves are: 1. 2.

Alcibiades979 (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The talk page shows the article name is in bad taste. The discussion also shows that there is no consensus on where "self-coup" comes from, or why it is decidedly a self-coup. All sources agree either side views the actions of congress as a coup or the actions of the former president as a coup. Heads of state overwhelmingly say the acts of congress are beatant coup behavior. No source mentions self-coup (and it's a ridiculous term to apply to a sitting president). Article 134 was lawfully invoked, courts decided it was improperly used and they were obeyed.


 * I would like to point out other than showing unexplained reversions, this user has absolutely no critique of the content. This user is the one hitting revert and undo.


 * If it's not clear, this user has two complaints: the title changing, and the lead changes. Despite using three sources across a sentence, they were inexplicably reverted, requesting consensus for basic facts such as Article 134 being invoked, hostility between congress and the president, a quote used as commentary on the fact that this is not a new phenomenon (actually, the previous articles use "constitutional crisis") is not normal or how to police.


 * Regarding the title, the talk page shows it was biased and used invented language. It had to be changed. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 07:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * After being reported User: Louis Waweru took to the talk page to call the WP:Consensus edits "bullshit" which is further edit warring behaviour and a violation of WP:Civility. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clear no edits on the talk page have read the definition of a self-coup: "An autogolpe (“self-coup”) occurs when a president closes the courts and the legislature, suspends the constitution, and rules by decree until a referendum and new legislative elections are held to approve broader executive powers." I'll point out that I did not remove "self-coup" from the reference to the 1992 incident which is is in every way different from the 2022 topic.
 * Bullshit is a synonym for nonsense, deception, etc. Again, the "consensus" edits in favor of "self-coup" don't actually support its usage with references, and are just deceptive nonsense. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 15:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The word as I used it isn't vulgar; see the definitions and synonyms on Wiktionary. The appropriate one's are not labeled as vulgarities:
 * (rhetoric) Statements that are intentionally misleading, whether true or not.
 * (philosophy) Statements made without regard for their truth value. quotations ▲
 * 2005, Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit
 * Respect for the truth and a concern for the truth are among the foundations for civilization. I was for a long time disturbed by the lack of respect for the truth that I observed... bullshit is one of the deformities of these values.
 * Talk⁄Louis Waweru 15:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

4RR: The user is continuing to edit war on the page. Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The user continues to have no explanation for why my credibly source facts are a war on the article. User is abusing this process. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 17:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No he's not, WP:3RR Applies to all articles including 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt and 2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis, besides that you went pass the 3RR Rule. Chip3004 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Undoing acts of vandalism exempts reverts from the rule. Removing joint statements between Mexico, Columbia, Argentina, Bolivia, that they do not recognize the new government, that invoking Article 134 is what Castillo did to violate the constitution, are all just facts.
 * There is no reason to revert my edits. And again, no reason has been given. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 17:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add in what I wrote in the talk page of the Peruvian self coup article, as I am trying to discuss it, but as 3RR was broken, I will add in my opinion here. The user Louis Waweru is radically trying to change this article from, a self coup to his own intepretation of all of this being a "constitutional crisis" as per his comment. The article has long been fine, without any edit wars, and backed up by reliable sources and posted on the news page. Now Louis Waweru is trying to convince everyone that it was lawful. He has been warned by me,, ,  and reported for breaking WP:3RR, which he again did here, . He has reverted more than 6 times in a day. He rejects seeking a consensus, only stating that his edits is right to everyone, that all scholars, reliable media that have branded it as a coup are wrong, and he is right, stating he knows more. Although scholars repeatedly say it was unlawful, just as the constitutional court said, as no vote ever occured. Therefore, I do support this report, his basis on a edit war and his 6 times revert, as well as trying to seek to radically change an important article with whatsoever no consesus concerns me. BastianMAT (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to convince the invocation was proper, but Castillo behaved lawfully, and was ousted for improperly dissolving congress. His actions, failure, and submission is not what a self-coup looks like.
 * It is undeniable that reliable media are reporting both sides are claiming a coup. Therefore choosing to name this as a self-coup is cherry picking.
 * None of my edits are my interpretations, and are all sourced. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 18:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * for a day Salvio 18:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow, can I add 2–4 back without obtaining consensus?
 * President of Peru Pedro Castillo invoked Article 134 of the Peruvian Constitution to dissolve a hostile Congress, which twice failed to impeach him within eight months and was retrying a third time as an Associated Press journalist would observe "president and Congress appeared to exercise their constitutional powers to do away with each other." The Constitution grants presidents power to to dissolve Congress if it successively motions for no confidence in a government.
 * The regional powers of Mexico, Bolivia, Columbia and Argentina issued a joint statement recording their view that Castillo is "a victim of undemocratic harassment" and pleaded for maintaining his human and legal rights.
 * The crisis led to Mexico placing relations with Peru on pause while continuing to recognize Castillo as Peru's leader.
 * Voice of America (a U.S diplomatic media arm considered to be propaganda) said...
 * If yes, why is reverting their blankings a violation 3RR? And how is blanking them not vandalism? Talk⁄Louis Waweru 18:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No. If you do, the perception will be you've started edit warring again and you'll probably be blocked again (reasonably, for a longer period of time). What you are supposed to do is follow WP:DISPUTE. This is not vandalism, this is a good-faith content dispute. Continuing to revert to your preferred version is the very definition of edit warring and will always lead to blocks. Salvio 19:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. (Someone has added those basic facts back.) Talk⁄Louis Waweru 19:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Rudy Zoma 1980 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Partially blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have corrected the number of overall assists in World Cup history"
 * 2)  "Why are you using an article about most assists from 1966 to 2018? What about previous world cups when Pelé had more assists? Why don't use web.archive.org which it has all world cup tournaments?"
 * 3)  "Why are you using an article about most assists from 1966 to 2018? What about previous world cups when Pelé had more assists? Why don't use web.archive.org which it has all world cup tournaments? Same source is claiming that Pelé has 6 assists in one World Cup, is this done on purpose to reduce the Legendary number of Pelé in favor of Messi and Maradona? Why don't you use web.archive.org which it includes all world cup tournaments?"
 * 4)  "If FIFA only started recording assists since 1994 then how come you have an article as a source where it shows all assists from 1966 to 2018? How come you don't use web.archive.org which it has all world cup tournaments?"
 * 5)  "I have corrected the number of assists provided by Pelé in World Cup history web.archive.org"
 * 6)  "I have corrected the number of assists provided by Pelé in the world cup web.archive.org"
 * 7)  "I have corrected the number of assists provided by Pelé in the world cup. Check web.archive.org"
 * 1)  "I have corrected the number of assists provided by Pelé in the world cup. Check web.archive.org"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

Have given warning on users talk page, but not being picked up by reporting tool, and discussion active on article talk page Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to add, Rudy Zoma 1980 has made these changes 15 times in the last nine days despite a reliable source being provided and a footnote being added as a compromise. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Salvio 13:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

User:2604:3D09:2287:E600:CDD5:67B7:5AF6:977B reported by User:Edwordo13 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff]

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:

Since October, I've been dealing with this IP user rewording the opening paragraph on Hellraiser (2022 film), and later overriding the reliable source I provided. I don't know why they've kept on coming back and specifically reverting my own edits, no matter what I do. Additonally, the IP user has never responded to their talk pages, and has been ignoring any warnings they've recieved. As of recently, they've reverted my edits exactly three times within 24 hours. I attempted to do a semi-protection request on the article to stop this edit war, but to no avail. Their IP always changes, too.
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP editor reverts a lot but does not discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, man. Hopefully, this will stop the IP user from reverting my edits without discussing it with me. Edwordo13 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Alwardamin reported by User:82.24.250.213 (Result: Blocked indef as promotional-only)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on the talkpage

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

as a promotional-only account due to admitted employment by article subject and editing on its behalf. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Wes sideman
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: before last revert Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=User_talk:Wes_sideman&diff=1126897476&oldid=1126495563#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion] Comments: in addition to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1127118124#Wes_Sideman_Abuse_of_Power Ironically, in a completely unrelated matter, Please be informed that wes sideman is again causing problems and edit warring another article about Klete Keller. (@Wes sideman: You need to stop now. When you point a finger at another, you point four at yourself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)) - It seems to be a pattern. He was warned by another admin @Deepfriedokra: and he recommended to block him (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deepfriedokra&diff=next&oldid=1120943837), As the previous complaint here states he falsified information to his liking and monitors and harasses. As he did with the Chad Johnson page, he becomes obsessed and does not want any remotely good press, even edit warring over the simple order in the lead of Klete Keller's impressive USA Olympic gold medal accomplishments BEFORE his minor participation in Jan 6. Another respected editor (SecretName101) clearly stated her case of the correct order in which the lead should be: "This being said, as far as the lead sentence, it seems pretty clear to me that it should mention that he is a swimmer first, then that he committed a crime. SecretName101 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)" --But he caviled into getting his way and reverted it AGAIN without any input from secretname101. Secretname101 still does not feel the lead is correct, and for good reason. sideman "acts" like he's a moderator/admin and that's why the person who reported wes sideman on admin EdJohnstons talk page was confused. Thank You. 170.55.61.26 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  completely disregarded Secretname101 hard work on lead

User:Lostglowlight982 reported by User:Magherbin (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user is edit warring on other pages as well. Ignores editors objections to his edits. Magherbin (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * along with . Salvio 23:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Medellin fa reported by User:Airtransat236 (Result: Pblocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1128974662 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1128973398 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1128973139 by LilianaUwU (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1128972577 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1128972269 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1128971541 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1128971033 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1128969984 by NoToFakeEdit (talk)"
 * 9)  "add image"
 * 10)  "Restore vandalism"
 * 1)  "Restore vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Reverted edits by NoToFakeEdit (talk) to last version by LilianaUwU"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Their team want to make wikis under another persons name, this is Hijack articles. You revert the Jawid Safi article to MehrabNabi edit version (Just chek the username who edit that version)!!!!!! Who is another fake person and you just deleted his article 30 minutes ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrab_Hossain_(Mehrab_Naabi) Please chek the article dates! on 15 december they try to hijack this article and change the name of Jawad Safi to javad safaee: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi&action=history&offset=20221210013727%7C1126568275 The true version is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi&oldid=97918824 They are meddelin team (as their username), if you search medellin and javad safaee in youtube, you can find they are SAME, this fake news website is for them: https://forbes.zone/2021/01/afghan-iranian-musician-and-athlete-left-the-cricket-team/ and they write these news for wikipedia articles as sources, you can chek the WHOIS of this website. '''Jawid safi is just and only Jawid safi, he dont have another nickname like javad safaee, please edit the article at this true version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jawid_Safi&oldid=979188247''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoToFakeEdit (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours from editing the article by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Wisdom-inc reported by User:Johannes Maximilian (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1127477870 (15 December 2022, 00:22)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1127477870/1128185377, 18 December 2022, 22:52
 * 2) Special:Diff/1127477870/1128349515, 19 December 2022, 18:46
 * 3) Special:Diff/1127477870/1128894592, 22 December 2022, 15:45
 * 4) Special:Diff/1127477870/1128977269, 23 December 2022, 01:19

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1128355042, 19 December 2022 19:25, after the second revert; (rather me asking the editor to join the talk page instead of making disruptive edits; he responded with the promotion of the conspiracy theory that Diesel didn't invent the Diesel engine)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1128088802/1128329415, 19 December 2022, 16:33, after the first revert

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1129063506

Comments:

A week ago I began making edits to the Wankel engine article which I believe is in need for an overhaul: A lot of the article's text was unreferenced, and per WP:RS's WP:SOURCETYPES, "articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible", and "when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" So I compared the article with said sources and found that they are contradictory to certain points the article makes, which is why I began removing unreferenced text, and text that had references, but where I couldn't verify the claims with the cited sources. I also found that a lot of the article's information was provided in multiple instances, which I fixed by removing text that contained information that was already present somewhere else in the article. The article also made several comparisions and claims which were not "false", but very misleading, so I either fixed or removed them. This is a list of the edits that I made.

On 18 December, User:Wisom-inc reverted my previous edits with a weird reason: "Reverted predoninately POVs". This didn't make a lot of sense to me (since I had removed POVs, and every addition I make is well referenced with good secondary sources). So I reverted this and began explaining my edits in detail on the talk page. Anyone may challenge unreferenced material, and that's what I have done. Basically, what I'm saying is that Wikipedia should rely on reliable, secondary, scholary sources whenever possible, and it should not promote claims that are contradictory to these sources.

I asked Wisdom-inc to join the discussion at the talk page,Special:Diff/1128355042 which he responded to by promoting a conspiracy theory.

Instead of joining the discussion at the talk page, the editor started reverting again and began making disruptive edits on the talk page; he promoted yet another conspiracy theory that I am a "crackpot" and "nut job" on Youtube. This is obviously against WP:NPA and it makes me doubt that Wisdom-inc is here to build an encyclopedia.

I dislike NPA editing which is why – as a de-ecsalating measure – I decided to just ignore this, and after making some additional edits (mainly adding additional sources), Wisdom-inc again introduced all of the unreferenced material that I had previously removed. So I again deleted the unreferenced content, now with a very clear edit summary: "Stop adding poorly written, unrefenrenced, and outright false content to the article. I have explained why I made these edits and there is absolutely no reason for reintroducing this content, especially when it is known that this is contradictory to known reliable sources" and began making additional edits to the article (mainly citing additional sources and removing misleading content).

Earlier this morning, this was again reverted by said editor with the exact same meaningless reason as before. While I think that this is an obvious violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR rule, I also think that this is WP:edit warring: Wisdom-inc makes unsourced additions to the article, and joins the discussion on the talk page only to violate WP:NPA, and propagate conspiracy theories. I haven't seen a single useful edit by this editor, and not a single attempt at resovling the dispute. What shall I do? I have encouraged him (and other editors) to cite reliable sources if they wish to make addtions to the article ("Any source that is, in quality, equivalent to Bensinger's scholary monograph may (and should!) be cited in this article"), but this hasn't done anything.

There's also been other edits that I find very concerning, for instance these edits which Wisdom-inc uses to promote the theory that "Japan is moving to a hydrogen society", and that "Just about all the negative aspects of the engine have been solved", which is contradictory to all reliable sources that discuss the Wankel engine. He also made very concerning edits to the Diesel engine article talk page, which he uses to promote the conspiracy theory that the Diesel engine was invented by Akroyd Stuart. The editor's talk page also reveals that this is not the first time that he's been making disruptive edits. Frankly, this editor needs to be stopped. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Post Scriptum: I have briefly browsed through this editor's editing history and the edit-warring pattern can be found in several other articles that he has edited… There's also been a previous discussion here at ANI. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I spent a number weeks restructuring the Wankel engine article and also giving easier to understand explanations as appropriate. There was still a lot of work to do to eliminate duplicated explanations scattered in sections. Johannes Maximilian stripped away, disruptively, huge parts of the Wankel Engine article with mainly POV. He even has outdated POV references. He added no value whatsoever.
 * His comment on the Diesel engine vs Akroyd is nonsense, as "facts" prove the Akroyd superseded the Diesel by a number of years. I mentioned this in the Diesel Talk page, not in the Diesel article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The speculation about certain YouTube users is nonsense and speaks for itself; it doesn't need repeating. Regarding the article: I removed unreferenced sections or sections which cited sources that failed to verify the article's claims. I have also made additions to the article, for which I used a variety of books, of which I have always used the latest editions, (e. g., footnotes 18–26), and I have even checked the Dubbel's 26th edition (from 2019) against its 14th edition (from 1981) to see whether or not the part describing Wankel engines has had major changes since then (and there weren't any significant changes). Wisdom-inc has not cited any sources at all! What he mentions in his 13:18 comment (""facts" prove the Akroyd superseded the Diesel by a number of years") is a conspiracy theory that (in a different context though) is described by reliable sources as "falsification of history", i. e., this is not my personal opinion or POV, but what reliable sources say about this. This is a perfect illustration of why the reported editor's behaviour is so problematic and causing huge damage to Wikipedia. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

User:PeeJay reported by User:Frank Anchor (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Please Note that the article is about a recent sporting event, so there have been several other constructive edits in addition to the subject edit-warring.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:.
 * Within two minutes, PeeJay reverted this edit with the comment "Don't template the regulars."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:.
 * PeeJay had a somewhat uncivil response.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * Should be noted that PeeJay removed this warning from his talk page with the comment "rvv" (revert vandalism)

Comments:

PeeJay has violated the three-revert rule as shown by the diffs above. These reverts all have to do with semantics and language of the pages, despite multiple other users disgreeing with him. For example, two of the reverts listed had to do with changing "the Vikings" to "the hosts" when it is not obvious that the Vikings were hosting the game (for example, to a reader who is only looking at the game summary section). Also, language involving the Vikings needing a win or a tie to clinch the division title (while PeeJay insists on the less straightforward "needed to avoid defeat" language rather than needed to win or tie, while baselessly accusing me of being WP:POINTY in the edit summary).

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a minor participant in this edit war, having made one revert during this time and a partial revert  (and a self-revert that would not count toward edit warring). PeeJay has also made a few other reverts during this time that I consider constructive and that do not count toward the 3RR.

Also should be noted that PeeJay has a long history of edit warring.  Frank  Anchor  18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is unnecessary escalation. The content of the article is under discussion on the talk page, and Frank's assessment of my responses has been grossly exaggerated. I'm happy to discuss the content, but it's hard to do so when instead of continuing the discussion they started, other editors would prefer to go straight to 3RR. I have no particular attachment to my own contributions, but when the alternative offered is inferior (at least in the opinion of this professional sports writer), there's no reason to stick with it. – PeeJay 18:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not go straight to 3RR, as evidenced by the reminder template on PeeJay's talk page and the discussion I opened on the article talk page, both of which were dismissed by PeeJay as shown on the above diff links.  Frank  Anchor  18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Standard practice is to interpret the deletion of talk page messages as acknowledgement. Didn’t you know that? – PeeJay 19:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Deletion of the notices is obviously fine, but PeeJay, "we're discussing" is not really a sufficient reason to breach 3RR, whatever the merits of the language. I promise the site will survive even if it has some subpar verbiage on it from time to time!  Happy Holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said there was an issue with PeeJay deleting the notices on his talk page. That is one accepted practice to show acknowledgement.  However, PeeJay falsely claimed that I went "straight to 3RR," while I was attempting to refute that claim by showing I (a) warned him with the standard edit-war template and (b) posted in the talk page attempting to discuss rather than continue edit warring, but PeeJay responded with an uncivil response that had a tone of "My version is better than yours because I get paid to write sports content" and then added a baseless accusation of me being vindictive for suggesting "need to win or tie" as an alternative to "need to avoid defeat"  Frank   Anchor  20:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It took about 20 minutes of reviewing the article history to determine that, within a 24-hour period, PeeJay made four reverts of other editors on either the issue of whether to describe the Vikings as "hosts" of the game in the body text or not, or how to phrase the Vikings' playoff position as whether they needed to "avoid defeat" or "a win or a tie". If these sound like silly things to get blocked over, they are. This is, well, choosing the pitcher's mound to die on. They should and could have been resolved on the talk page. Yes, PeeJay said in his response above that discussion had started, but this combative response, in par with a generally tendentious tendency one sees throughout his edit history, is hardly adequate to make that claim. All the same, I have limited the block to 24 hours, the standard sanction for a 3RR violation, despite the editor's lengthy history of longer blocks, because while he violated the rule he is not the only one responsible for this situation. Not just he, but Frank and the other editors involved, could have availed themselves of other dispute resolution mechanisms for this. I also find that PeeJay's edits were, on their own terms, entirely defensible choices of wording that Wikipedia's collaborative processes deserved a chance to work out without getting here, another reason I only went with the standard block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * please note that I did NOT restore the the notice of this discussion to PeeJay's talk page, as you claim I did. This is shown in the two diffs I linked above. My first post was a standard edit war template that I used in an attempt to have a discussion with PeeJay rather than bring the discussion to this noticeboard. The second post was the notice of the discussion here, which I am required to add to his talk page. Therefore, I see no violation of WP:BLANKING and I respectfully request that you strike that part of your comment.  Frank  Anchor  20:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. However, two straight templated notices within 20 minutes with the same general theme ... can you really blame him for feeling harassed and thinking they were the same exact notice? Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And I will keep that in mind for the future.  Frank  Anchor  23:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case: I appreciate your comments. However, I still find it wholly inappropriate that the process was allowed to escalate to a 3RR report so quickly. This is not the first interaction between myself and User:Frank Anchor, and the last one didn't go very well either, hence my defensive response on the talk page. But regardless of the tone of my response, that was no excuse for Frank to avoid the discussion in favour of continuing the edit war and filing a report here. I'll be honest with you, I'm the sort of editor who just likes to go about his business with a minimum of fuss. I make good contributions and I'll defend them vehemently, but I know my contributions aren't perfect and one thing no other editor could say about me is that I'm unwilling to attempt to reach a compromise. That was not allowed to happen before this report was filed, and I find that quite distateful. – PeeJay 03:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not the first sanctioned editor to have complained to me recently about how quickly someone filed a report here that I took action based on. Although reporters are required to show that they have notified the reported individual and started a talk page discussion, that does not forestall reviewing admins from looking at the record, and since 3RR is, outside of the established exceptions, a strict liability situation, I do not believe an admin needs to wait for a response from the reported editor (Similarly with situations where an editor has been reverting at least once a day for several days without really discussing). Perhaps there should be some requirement that some time be allowed to lapse from the notification in less clear cases, or that an editor wait some time after the last revert (I have had to tell people that what they thought was the fourth revert was actually the third, since the first one was the original edit and not a revert). But that's better taken up at the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks again for being fair minded about things. – PeeJay 21:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for continuing to beat a dead horse, but to I felt I had to respond in order to prevent this from being a one-sided discussion. I reasonably considered PeeJay’s blanking of the page as acknowledgment of the template, and his uncivil edit summary “don’t template the regulars,” along with his comment on the article talk page “Which of us in here is actually someone who gets paid to write sports content?” to mean that he had no interest in discussing rather than continuing to revert. I apologize if I got that wrong.  Frank   Anchor  23:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When I said “don't template the regulars”, I was quoting Wikipedia policy. Sorry if that got lost in the mix. – PeeJay 12:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was unaware this policy existed.  Thanks for sharing!  Frank   Anchor  13:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually an essay rather than a policy. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair distinction, although the fact that it is in the WP namespace suggests a level of legitimacy not shared by its sister essay "Template the regulars". – PeeJay 16:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

User:OgamD218 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: 72-hour block from article)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) : Revert at 05:01, 15 December 2022.
 * 2) : Revert at 09:39, 16 December 2022.
 * 3) : Revert at 05:22, 18 December 2022.
 * 4) : Revert at 09:11, 19 December 2022.

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

Comments:

OgamD218 made several WP:BOLD edits to an article that has been stable for a very long time. For example, he added an unsourced, essay-like paragraph about the ideology of Ba'thism based on his personal analysis: "Though not a fully uniform ideology, at its core Ba'athism promotes Arab Nationalism, while also heavily incorporating ideals such as Pan-Arabism, Antisemitism and Arab Socialism. While religious faith, particularly Sunni Islam is not at all rejected by mainstream Ba'athists, the movement was openly and overtly secular with Muslim and Christian minorities often holding leadership Offices within the Party. Atheism was expressly rejected by the movements ideological founder, largely due to its association with communism." (Most of that is not particularly inaccurate, but the relevance of OgamD218's research on Ba'thism to the topic of the article—Saddam–al-Qaeda conspiracy theory—is far from obvious, nor is it clear that antisemitism is a core component of Ba'thist ideology, to my knowledge at least.) Furthermore, OgamD218 boldly removed extremely salient content from the highly-qualified academic experts Daniel Byman and Robert Pape, labeling the latter "discreted" [sic] with no elaboration and initially refusing to explain why he removed the former. Obviously, we welcome bold editing on Wikipedia, but it is unacceptable to continually restore contested revisions without consensus or discussion per WP:BRD.

Additionally, there is disturbing evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and lack of competence by OgamD218. For example, when I asked OgamD218 why he had removed Byman with no explanation, he did not explain the edit, but instead derided my "objectively false claim" and referred to his original "thorough editor summary": i.e., "Pape is among the most discreted researchers in this field, regardless his stance is antithetical to the argument it's being used to advance". While OgamD218 was careful to state that he was assuming good faith at that time, he has since openly described my challenge to his edits as a "bad faith revision," and—on a related article where he is also engaged in disruptive editing to remove long-standing content from academic specialists in favor of unsourced commentary—as "bad faith revisions by wiki stalker/possible vandal TheTimesAreAChanging". Sadly, all the telltale signs of lack of competence are there: Inability to engage with other users in a collegial manner; misconstruing policies such as original research and synthesis to apply to reliable sources such as Pape (see these diffs, in which OgamD218 points out that Pape is "wrong" to invoke the lack of involvement by Iraqi nationals in 9/11 as evidence that Iraq likely was not involved in the attacks) as opposed to Wikipedia editors (himself included); misusing the term "vandalism" to apply to edits by long-standing users with whom he disagrees (which is not how we define WP:VANDALISM on Wikipedia); formatting a note incorrectly so that it is hidden on the Saddam Hussein article; etc.

I have asked OgamD218 repeatedly (e.g.,, , ) to open a discussion on the talk page, but he has not done so, and it is frankly very difficult to understand the intent behind these edits from the vague, opaque, personal-attack laden edit summaries (filled with misstatements and spelling errors) alone. For example, what did OgamD218 mean when he wrote that Pape's "stance is antithetical to the argument it's being used to advance," or when he dismissed Michel Aflaq as the "fictional founder" of Ba'thist thought? I'm not a mind reader (nor is mind-reading a requirement for our volunteer editors)!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The link here was dead before I was able to respond. It now seems possible for me to respond which though I only ask if that's allowed or even worth it considering a decision having been made against me based on a mix of misrepresentations and out lies using fabricated evidence like misleading links? OgamD218 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record I based my decision on the article history, which shows you repeatedly making the same edits and, as noted above and at my talk page, refusing to even acknowledge three separate suggestions that you open a talk page discussion, over a period of five days. The substance of what you were arguing about is of minimal importance next to how you handled the content dispute. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Most of my actual edits were not BOLD and are being misrepresented; I noticed the section at issue contained mostly content that read like an essay/POV pushing, often uncited etc. Some was long-standing, some wasn’t, virtually none had ever gained talk-consensus. My personal pref would've been to remove most of it but I opted to instead take a less BOLD approach and revise the wording, insert citations if needed/where I could, edits so at least the content was factually accurate. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with ANEW but I feel TheTimesAreAChanging must've violated a rule linking to edits I self reverted prior to their report. The only substantive change I made in one instance was add Anti-Semitism, which is in fact a component of Iraqi Ba'athism. If objection to this was raised to this specifically I would have taken to Talk, but no specifics ever were raised by TAC who eventually began deleting sources I added to longstanding uncited content. I never deleted the ref to Aflaq, nor *dismiss him-"fake founder" was perhaps an unclear term, I erred assuming in good faith TAC had competency or at least ability skim the article on him in which case it may have been more clear, irregardless this is irrelevant it was at worst an unclear edit summary, not edit warring.

Again I feel like there must be a rule against lying in a report. I did delete both the ref to Pape and Byman, the former lacked synthesis and the later bc content did not match what was actually sourced and in fact contradicts it. I partially self reverted, restoring the Byman content with changes to a few words reflecting what Byman actually says. TAC did not contest my interpretation of the source but continued to edit war. These changes were not bold or controversial and the sources were there. Again, had TAC disputed my interpretation of the source I would have gone to talk but they appeared to either miss or deliberately ignore it, incensed on edit warring.

In another instance TAC reverted my edit consisting solely of grammar fixes and providing a source to longstanding uncited content I personally do not even believe belongs. I was trying to improve the article without being bold. An editor going out of their way to ensure wiki contains uncited info is not trying to improve it. Their edit summary consisted solely of a complaint how in a separate edit I delete Pape (edit warring?). Robert Pape’s thesis argues that Islamist ideation was not in any way a contributing factor behind the 9/11 attacks. Pape's "exhaustive research on suicide attacks" as cited does not address the Saddam-AQ conspiracy. My edit summaries repeatedly state Pape's research was irrelevant/did not address underlying issue-this seemed sufficient, but only if TAC had the competency I assumed in good faith they did especially in light of his fervent defense of Pape's credentials.

There exists no consistency in TAC reverts/edit summaries. I still opted to self revert multiple disputes. Good faith slided away as TAC kept failing to acknowledge the fact their issues were addressed in my edit summaries. I never breached the 3RR. In contrast TAC reverted an edit of mine minutes before making this report and minutes after I was blocked reverted 2 more......including deleting a citation and leaving content unsourced. OgamD218 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, before this gets archived, it's not so much what the edits were about as how you went about it: repeatedly making the edits over a couple of days and not responding to entreaties to take it to talk. When someone else suggests you take it to talk, and you don't, and keep reverting, don't be surprised when it ends up here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

User:134.69.212.222 reported by User:MasterMatt12 (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You american idiots, i am from France. I am most qualified to edit this article. Vive la France, fck off Yankees!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1129173107 by AgisdeSparte (talk) You do not have a monopoly on truth. Stop immediately"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1129172453 by AgisdeSparte (talk) Who are you to decide that? Discuss this topic on the talk page of this article, before you add irrelevant information."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1129169226 by Moops (talk) How is the background relevant? This article is about this shooting and not about Paris shootings in general"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Other people warned him of reverting the info. Master Matt12 (Talk to me) (Cool user page) 23:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * He's been removing all the notices on his talk page and adding PA's. I think the best course of action is a permanent block. This IP is not here to contribute. ScottishFinnishRadish, after 31 hours this person will just continue this nonsense. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you certain this isn't a dynamic IP? It looks like today was the first time this IP edited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asserting a dynamic IP. But this might be a case where whoever this is, is going to do it again and again. Talk page behavior should be obvious. Revoking the ability to edit their own talk page should be a part of it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 31 hours by Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A stronger block is needed. It's not right for this IP to remove the block notices. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly acceptable to remove block notices, only declined unblocks should be kept. Ignore them and let them scream into the void. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Editmaster4 reported by User:Joeyconnick (Result: Partially blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: previous version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

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

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

Comments:

I suspect user is sockpuppetting also... and IP user  have removed the same material recently with the identical lack of explanation.
 * Salvio 08:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is the same source used for ozzy osbourne so it counts as reliable. Look for yourself."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See diffs on List of signature.... User has consistently disregarded input regarding the poor choice of sources and some that don't even support their claims regarding signature songs. Bedivere (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Kbrose reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Declined - at ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 2022-12-24T17:46:24

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2022-12-24T18:47:30
 * 2) 2022-12-24T19:09:58
 * 3) 2022-12-24T19:11:14
 * 4) 2022-12-24T19:24:49

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2022-12-24T19:19:27

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 2022-12-24T18:06:10

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2022-12-24T19:35:27

Comments:

This editor has repeatedly broken threading to insert their comments wherever they want without regard for WP:TPG. In the past I've fixed their errors, but they appear to be deliberately placing their comments above other editors, out of chronological order and in violation of talk page guidelines. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An admin may also want to revoke Kbrose's WP:ROLLBACK rights as they appear to be using them to revert non-vandalism edits (see diffs above). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You have no business removing talk page additions by other users. The contribution were placed exactly where intended and nowhere else. You simply don't like those comments to stand immediately where they are relevant to stand in support or opposition of prior statements, especially in opposition to your statements, rather than obscured in a poorly constructed sequencing in your conceived ideas of threading. Your entire behavior of countless edit warring in these subject matters of the binary prefixes speaks volumes. This is another attempt at bullying opposing editors with harassment, as shown by you countless times. You have previously resorted to these tactics of reporting your opponents with provoked conflicts and you were rebuked by admins then. kbrose (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:TPG is that way, which I again note is a guideline. If you don't like threaded conversations, you should find someplace else to edit that doesn't require them. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

For information, I have linked this thread at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The behavior can be addressed at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Random-cook reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Partially blocked for 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

I know this isn't WP:3RR because of the timing, but it's pretty close; and there are some other factors involved so I decided to ask for some help.

I've been trying to fix some errors in Air Moldova. Random-cook has added some material with an undefined reference, so I removed it with a comment to that effect. I've also fixed some mismatched square brackets.

Random-cook responded by reverting my change and leaving a message on my talk page that I needed their permission before editing the article. Their revert carelessly included the unbalanced brackets and re-introduced the referencing error.

On my talk page:

The artilce's talk page:

The user hasn't responded to me on my own talk page or the article talk page and appears to be insistent on inserting the un-sourced material into the article and not only establishing but also enforcing ownersip. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * from editing this specific article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

User:AMomen88 reported by User:LucrativeOffer (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored last balanced version with additional citations"
 * 2)  "There is no consensus for LucrativeOffer's problematic edits so you can't rv on those grounds"
 * 3)  "If you took the liberty of reading the sources and my content, you would notice the facts."
 * 4)  "Facts are not political commentaries. Restructured the lead to ensure it is balanced."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* NPOV */"
 * 2)   "/* NPOV */"
 * 3)   "/* NPOV */"
 * 4)   "/* NPOV */"

Comments:

AMomen88 has been on an unabated edit war for the past two weeks on this page to restore his POV contents full of personal opinions from faulty sources and to remove sourced contents which he calls 'negative'. There have been multiple attempts to make him aware of the problems with his edits but in a complete disregard for the polices, he has continued to revert multiple editors along with engaging in personal attacks. He has already received a blocked for 3RR violation on this same page just few days ago. LucrativeOffer (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments: The user Lucrative Offer has himself been engaged in an unrelenting edit war as he has reverted my edits on more than three occasions under the guise of being "promotional" despite failing to explain why. The cited content I inserted was derived from well sourced and neutral articles. The user has continuously reinserted content which heavily skewed the neutrality of the article. I want to ensure the lead of the article is balanced and neutral but it seems the user wants a lead which is solely negative which is not an accurate representation of the subject. A discussion was ongoing on the talk page regarding the conflicting edits but the user continued to reinsert the contentious edits despite consensus not being met on the talk page. The user was warned but continued to reinsert their contentious edits.—AMomen88 (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

User:5.62.214.57 reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: Both IPs blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on [[Khanaqin]]."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Fourth revert was done with a different IP account Semsûrî (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Both IPs. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor has returned with a third a account . Semsûrî (talk) 10:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This article fall under WP:ARBKURDS. In view of the continued warring from a new address, the nationalist issues and the article history I've semiprotected the page for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have also blocked the third IP for 2 weeks for block evasion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

User:86.139.109.185 reported by User:Dumuzid (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1129749065 by Dumuzid (talk) following guidelines and writing in English does not need to be discussed. You need to explain why you think those things should not be done, or why you haven't bothered to understand the edits you are reverting"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1129748517 by McSly (talk) false claim. writing in grammatically correct English is not something you can object to."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1129748355 by WaWe here (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1129747771 by Dumuzid (talk) you think following simple guidelines and writing in grammatically correct English not an improvement? You are either retarded or trolling, then."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1129674445 by DMacks (talk) rather than using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. and why did you undo all the other changes, exactly? Was it malice, or stupidity?"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned by McSly, continued edit warring, also aggressive and uncivil in edit summaries. Dumuzid (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , with the accusation of vandalism against McSly an aggravating factor.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

User:ParticipantObserver reported by User:1keyhole (Result: Declined for failure to show evidence)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]Revision as of 15:01, 27 December 2022
 * 2) [diff]Revision as of 15:07, 27 December 2022
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

Failure to show the receipts. Indeed, it almost seems like the reporter wasn't even interested in doing so. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:MagellanAquarium (Result: No violation by MrOllie; nominator indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kessler,_Dallas&oldid=112994257

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kessler,_Dallas&oldid=1129931675
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kessler,_Dallas&oldid=1128414489
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kessler,_Dallas&oldid=1128153714
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kessler,_Dallas&oldid=1128134209

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kessler,_Dallas

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

Comments:

This user continues to revert my good faith edits with no legit reason. They have done it multiple times this month. The recent version I edited was well-referenced yet the person deleted all of the content again. Tried to communicate with the user on the talk page multiple times but didn't generate any meaningful results. You can find the recent version I edited that they reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kessler,_Dallas&oldid=1129793004. >— Preceding unsigned comment added by MagellanAquarium (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion that you both participated in at Talk:Kessler, Dallas, it appears that 's reverts are in good faith. You may want to request a third opinion, since it doesn't look like there's been participation in the talk page beyond the two of you. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominator indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Gjonesagain reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1129966541 by Shoerack (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Mueller investigation and "complete and total exoneration" */ This section is not relevant. This section was labeled as a "talking point" for the Mueller Special Counsel investigation and should be added to that article, not this one."
 * 3)  "/* Mueller investigation and "complete and total exoneration" */ Removing as not relevant to this article"
 * 4) (on similar but different page)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking."
 * 2)   "/* December 2022 */ Reply"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Comments: 3 reverts and another revert on a different page after warning. Responded to my warnings by templating back with disruptive edit warning. WP:SPA here to bowlderize the Mueller report page. Andre🚐 02:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a violation of the brightline 3RR (only 3 reverts in 24 hrs), but still disruptive and sanctionable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

User:AhmetYu reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1130071280 by MrOllie (talk) There is no consensus, see Talk for details. Peer-reviewed scientific source is necessary for NPOV if "False" shall be kept."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1130023545 by Bon courage (talk) Consensus on that talk is irrelevant to the argument that the mentioned source is not peer-reviewed research but just an opinion. There is a more graving consensus about that source on Wikipedia demonstrating it does not deliver a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS"
 * 3)  "Remove "False" because source scientifically not reliable. The context requires peer-reviewed research as reference for calling it "False""
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1129963627 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) Quoting some random author doesn't make it more scientific, a peer-review is required here to claim it being false, talking about random authors opinions won't suffice. Sciencebasedmedicine.org is not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS, see WP:SBM . Why would one insist on calling it "False", let the reader decide it if you can't deliver proves"

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

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

Comments:
 * After invoking Hitler on the Talk page, with this edit the editor is now at 5RR. Bon courage (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

User:107.190.33.254 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Semiprotected one year under BLPDS)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Suspension of journalist accounts */ The vandal's edit was removed, so I'll take it mine wasn't the issue"
 * 2)  "/* Background */"
 * 3)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 4)  "/* Suspension of journalist accounts */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1129961335 by VQuakr (talk) Please remove the bits that bother you instead of such a widespread revert, thanks!"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1129961512 by 107.190.33.254 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1129949564 by 98.155.8.5 (talk) sentences are too long"
 * 8)  "show me how Twitter handles are encyclopedic knowledge and I'll be glad to add 'em back in"
 * 9)  "/* Explanation from Twitter and Musk */ we already mention this elsewhere"
 * 10)  "/* Suspension of journalist accounts */ again, show me how twitter handles are useful to ANYONE and I'll plop 'em back in myself"
 * 11)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 12)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 13)  "/* Account suspensions */"
 * 14)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 15)  "/* Response from suspended journalists */"
 * 16)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 17)  "/* Response from suspended journalists */"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 1129935728 by 98.155.8.5 (talk)removed unconstructive edits, please discuss in the talk page!!!"
 * 19)  "/* Response from other commentators */ removed unexplained quote, if you really want this quote please create a talk page section for it"
 * 20)  "/* Background */ if you wish to argue about this, please do so in the talk page"
 * 21)  "/* Response from other commentators */ not arguing on this; we shouldn't include every commen"
 * 22)  "/* Background */"
 * 23)  "/* Background */"
 * 24)  "/* Background */"
 * 25)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 26)  "/* Response from other commentators */ minor edits, this article should be shorter a the keep decision was close"
 * 27)  "/* Background */"
 * 28)  "/* Response from other commentators */ too much information; we don't need a quote from every person who talked about this; this is a twitter feud, not the battle of Stalingrad, keep it short and sweet"
 * 29)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 30)  "Shouldn't be in the lead ; too much information and we mention all of it elsewhere"
 * 31)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 32)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 33)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 34)  "/* Response from suspended journalists */ we already mention someone who points this out, we don't need to repeat ourselves 800 times"
 * 35)  "/* Explanation from Twitter and Musk */"
 * 36)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 37)  "this is an entire repeat of a section below."
 * 38)  "/* Background */"
 * 39)  "/* Twitter policy changes */"
 * 40)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 41)  "/* Explanation from Twitter and Musk */"
 * 42)  "/* Suspension of flight-tracking accounts */"
 * 43)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 44)  "/* Response from other commentators */ we already mention he's suspended"
 * 45)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 46)  "/* Suspension of journalist accounts */"
 * 1)  "Shouldn't be in the lead ; too much information and we mention all of it elsewhere"
 * 2)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 3)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 4)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 5)  "/* Response from suspended journalists */ we already mention someone who points this out, we don't need to repeat ourselves 800 times"
 * 6)  "/* Explanation from Twitter and Musk */"
 * 7)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 8)  "this is an entire repeat of a section below."
 * 9)  "/* Background */"
 * 10)  "/* Twitter policy changes */"
 * 11)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 12)  "/* Explanation from Twitter and Musk */"
 * 13)  "/* Suspension of flight-tracking accounts */"
 * 14)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 15)  "/* Response from other commentators */ we already mention he's suspended"
 * 16)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 17)  "/* Suspension of journalist accounts */"
 * 1)  "/* Suspension of flight-tracking accounts */"
 * 2)  "/* Reinstatement of some accounts */"
 * 3)  "/* Response from other commentators */ we already mention he's suspended"
 * 4)  "/* Response from other commentators */"
 * 5)  "/* Suspension of journalist accounts */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions

Comments: User conveniently left out the part where I reverted this edit of mine upon realising it looked like edit-warring.
 * 23:33, 27 December 2022‎ Undid revision 1129961512 by 107.190.33.254 (talk)
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1129961335 by VQuakr (talk) Please remove the bits that bother you instead of such a widespread revert, thanks!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1129961512 by 107.190.33.254 (talk)"

I make a lot of edits since I am on my phone and it's fiddly to make one large edit. If the user had told me that this behaviour was problematic, we could've discussed, next time please contact me and discuss the issue instead of immediately going to the noticeboard, cheers!

Also, user notified me #  "Warning: Edit warring on December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions." and then refused to explain himself any further, simply jumping the gun on going to the noticeboard


 * @: Thank you for reporting this. I have tried to resolve things on the IP user's talk page, on the article talk page, and have requested page protection specifically due to the combative edits from . They are not working to build consensus, this is becoming extremely tiresome to deal with. Thank you for your help. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I genuinely believed we were just having a somewhat tense, but interesting, back and forth, with each of us reverting and modifying what the other did, I'd like to point out that while this did mean combative editing, this IS how consensus is built, and running off to noticeboards is not constructive editing by any means, cheers
 * ! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Group 11 is literally a single edit which, to my knowledge, I have not changed since 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll acknowledge that some of those do show me reverting other people's edits, but I've stopped editing the page to show those were spur of the moment mistakes 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You've stopped editing the page because it's now protected. :)
 * At least you can't edit-war on this page anymore, but I think your behavior still warrants a block. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't edit-warring to start with, and I think your bad faith behaviour should still warrant a block, cheers! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one year by User:ToBeFree under WP:BLPDS. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

User:A.Musketeer reported by User:AMomen88 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Where are the facts in your edit?"
 * 2)  "get consensus for your problematic edit"
 * 3)  "use talk page to get consensus, opinion pieces are not facts"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user has engaged in a relentless edit war, reverting me edits on more than three occasions within a 24 hour period- a clear violation of the 3RR. The user has constantly reinserted material which biases the lead and skews the neutrality of the article. —AMomen88 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Comment - Listing your own diff as mine to make it four when there is no violation of 3RR by me is probably the most dishonest conduct I have seen in wikipedia so far. This user has been constantly trying to remove content which are critical to the subject despite multiple editors continuously and patiently trying to make him understand his faults. He has just returned from his second block over edit warring on this article and this report appears to be just another of his disruptions. A.Musketeer (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

User:156.214.112.44 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Declined; parties discussing on talk page)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I didn't do anything wrong, you are the one harassing me and removing well-sourced info. We need an administrator here."
 * 2)  "The page isn't owned by anyone, I am providing a source here. This is clearing against Wikipedia rules regarding removing well-sourced content."
 * 3)  "It's a local bazaar, nothing wrong with my edit. And yes it witnessed so many changes in purpose than present day hence why the word first."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit-warring in lead */ new section"

Comments:

Edit-warring over wording in the lead. (Note: I linked the talk page comment addressing their edits, but they resumed edit-warring while I was writing it so it's kind of moot, I'm reporting this before hitting 3RR.) R Prazeres (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Kindly I am the one who provided source to my edit, and my edit was undone with just threats and without any reasons given witin the edit-summary, only threats. Also I am the one who asked for an administrator to interfere, and when they did, the user removed 331dot's warning to make it appear like I am the only warned one which is very manipulative. 156.214.112.44 (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You were given brief reasons for the revert from the start in the edit summary, as is normal practice. If you wanted me to explain more you could have asked me directly on my talk page or the article talk page, where I'd happily respond. When you reinstated your edit you were given very clear warnings and instructions here and here. You choose to ignore them and continue edit-warring. No "threats" were made; the whole point of warning you is to give you the chance to stop your disruptive behaviour before this needs to be reported. If you refrain from further edit-warring and take future disagreements to the talk page first, then ideally no further action needs to be taken on this IP. R Prazeres (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * the way I see it, you're both edit warring... Since you seem to be talking now, my hope is that this can be resolved without needing blocks. Can you both please agree to take this to the article's talk page and follow WP:DISPUTE, without further reverts? Salvio 22:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Getting the problem to move to the talk page instead of the editing history is exactly why I came here, so yes, of course. Thanks for your help. R Prazeres (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors took it to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

User:VideoGamerKing reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I can do this all day." - This was meant to set up a joke that admittedly would not have been funny at all. I am sorry for my actions, this kind of behavior from me won't happen again.
 * 2)  "Can whoever is replacing my list with the one with the Hulk kindly stop? He's not on the team and with mine I cover more bases than potentially miss any current members."
 * 3)  "Whoever keeps undoing my list please stop. All of the members that I am featuring are a part of the Avengers team in All-Out Avengers and Secret Invasion Vol 2, which, as far as we know, take place in Earth-616. I am basing this list on heroes that where prominently featured in those issues alongside the other members because that's the comic confirming that they're a part of the team at that moment. So please stop undoing my list."

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

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

Comments:

This user doesn't seem to have ever used a talk page, though they have recently found edit summaries - though there is no indication they are reading anyone else's summaries. MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The user in question is still edit-warring Jacob Wilkerson (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

User:86.174.76.28 reported by User:BrigadierG (Result: Pblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1130507413 by BrigadierG (talk) you do that if you think there is something here of any value"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1130501607 by Tommi1986 (talk) do not lie. if you disagree with my edit, you are obliged to say why."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1130495874 by Tommi1986 (talk) do not lie. if you disagree with my edit, you are obliged to say why."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * The IP has been pblocked for 48h by .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The reporting user has no evidence of any previous interest in this article. They appear to be reverting my edit purely to cause disruption. They have, as you can see, made zero attempt of any kind to explain why they disagree with it. 86.174.76.28 (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I monitor Special:RecentChanges for edits flagged as potentially disruptive for manual review. Reverts by IP users tend to trip the filter. BrigadierG (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you thought of any actual reason that you thought the edit should be undone yet? 86.174.76.28 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @86.174.76.28 Sorry, only exceptions for edit warring are WP:3RRNO Lemonaka (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, and furthermore I am in fact Zazgan, the demon of cruft retention, risen from the nine hells to make every article worse off. BrigadierG (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

User:CharizardTheMan reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Robot"
 * 2)  "Stop supporting doxxing websites..."
 * 3)  "You are just saying that so you won't be criticized. Doxxing site supporter"
 * 4)  "Cited"
 * 5)  "The site is illegal in my area, and it could get me fined for visiting it. And also it's so ironic coming from you, considering this site doesn't even have reliable sources at all and lies 24/7"
 * 6)  "Are you serious? Look at the site, and clearly look at the activity of it. And this site is filled with criminals."
 * 7)  "The community on it is filled with doxxers, racists, psychopaths, and criminals in general"
 * 8)  "Satirical? At this point it's just a community that doxxes and lies about people..."
 * 1)  "Satirical? At this point it's just a community that doxxes and lies about people..."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Salvio 17:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

User:AlsoWukai reported by User:CastJared (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (ce, rm non-notable)
 * 2)  (briefly circulated false rumors are non-notable)

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:

There is a source that Zendaya and Alexa Demie claims on Twitter that they're leaving the series, but however, this got reverted twice. CastJared (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Salvio 13:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

User:DJV11181988 reported by User:Sammi Brie (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1130637922 by Sammi Brie (talk) Other articles have mention of master control in their paragraphs. This station's master control is based at WTKR/WGNT."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1130389931 by Sammi Brie (talk) Master control and some internal operations are at WTKR/WGNT."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* "Master control" in lead paragraphs */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Insertion of crufty material in leads of TV station articles; while DJV has done this on other pages, this one has led to a near-revert battle. DJV has made no attempt to engage talk page discussions. In fact, the user has not edited any user talk page, their own included, since March 2017. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * . If you believe this is a generalized problem, then you should take user to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Agmonsnir reported by User:86.190.146.190 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revert previous to spam by potential trol"
 * 2)  "Revert - an anonymous troll that took most the article off...."
 * 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:

The user has reverted four times in a short space of time, with nonsensical edit summaries which include personal attacks. A little dig into their editing history suggests that they are motivated primarily by a dislike of anonymous editors (see for example "Might be correct, but not when coming from anonymous who cannot be a part of a discussion") 86.190.146.190 (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed, an anonymous user that takes off 17,663 characters, most of the work that was invested in the article by many, is a potential troll. He made no detailed explanation for this deletion, except "Removed unencyclopaedic material. Writing out in prose data which has no real encyclopaedic value and should be tabulated if it did, really is a waste of time". If this is done by a registered entity, the correct way to make such a change is to open a discussion about the article, and be open to potential other thoughts. Agmonsnir (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I see it, this article has a massive problem which is likely best resolved by healthy application of WP:TNT. Almost the entire thing is in violation of WP:OR. BrigadierG (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The article has been semi-protected for one week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was not a "result"; it was done before the report was even filed, and included a maliciously false accusation of vandalism. The conduct of the edit-warring account reported, and the dishonest administrator who made false accusations of vandalism to assist the edit-warrior, still need examining. 86.147.61.81 (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for having previously marked this as resolved. Most of the time a note that the page was protected is taken to indicate that the article history has been reviewed and that action was taken as a result; the header is not always amended at the same time to reflect that so I just thought that that's what had happened here. But I felt that since you'd been so determined in reversing this that I should at least take a look at the article history, and lo and behold you were correct that 3RR had been violated. So now this is definitely resolved. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Tobi999tomas reported by User:DarnItAll34 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 07:13, 17 November 2022‎ SirZPthundergod9001 Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:54, 30 December 2022 diff hist  +207‎  The Hell We Create ‎ Undid revision 1130574496 by Tobi999tomas
 * 2) 23:54, 30 December 2022 diff hist  −407‎  The Hell We Create ‎ Undid revision 1130575252 by Tobi999tomas (talk) information is drawn from album, no reason to delete
 * 3) 23:46, 30 December 2022 diff hist  −4‎  The Hell We Create ‎ Undid revision 1130575420 by Tobi999tomas
 * 4) 23:45, 30 December 2022 diff hist  +4‎  Fit for a King (band) ‎ Undid revision 1130574943 by Tobi999tomas
 * 5) 23:53, 30 December 2022 diff hist  +419‎  Fit for a King (band) ‎ Undid revision 1130574368 by Tobi999tomas
 * 6) 04:05, 29 December 2022‎ DarnItAll34 talk contribs‎  27,715 bytes +419‎  Undid revision 1129435948 by Tobi999tomas

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tobi999tomas, please stop removing my edits, the removals make no sense as there are reliable sources and good information. I've noticed you've done this with other edits and information. Please contribute and not detract. DarnItAll34 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Discogs is reliable. Your edits make no sense, stop it.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Fit for a king[edit source] I am reporting you for edit-warring, as you have reverted my edits more than three times.

Comments:user will not stop reverting my edits, gives no clear reason other than noting once that Discogs is not a reliable source, even though I believe it is. I also believe he is a potential troll. He has deleted other people's edits without explanation.
 * Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * warring has been resolved, no need for action from administrator DarnItAll34 (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

User:78.0.61.109 reported by User:Eagleash (Result: Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple disruptive edits at this page and others (see also 93.137.185.189). Edit warring, ignoring 'hidden advice' and abusive edit summaries to more than one editor, Attempets to engage at TPs have not been heeded. Eagleash (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The 93.137.185.189 address has subsequently been blocked. Eagleash (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From the standpoint of this noticeboard there is no violation as there have only been three reverts; the report is also malformed as it fails to offer evidence not only of the edit warring but of any attempt to resolve the issue before reporting here. Further, it is getting kind of stale as the IP has not edited since last year . This report should ideally have been made at AN/I. However ... the use of the now-blocked second IP in an apparent attempt to avoid consequences, as well as the profane and uncivil personal attacks in the edit summaries, three of which had to be RevDel'ed, obviate any need to refer it there as it clearly constitutes disruptive editing, and so I have blocked this IP for the same length of time as the other IP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Korny O'Near reported by User:Horse Eye's Back (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 6

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

Comments:

There is a sixth revert in the middle of the spree which they self-reverted with the edit summary "don't know what the 3RR status is right now, don't care enough to check." One of their most recent edits has the summary "I don't mean to get into an edit war..." so they are clearly aware that they are edit warring. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Salvio 13:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what "stale" means (I guess it's good news for me), but I just want to note that, of these five supposed reverts, only two (#3 and #4) are actually reverts - the rest are just regular edits. So it looks like I could have even done that supposed "sixth revert". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Sigmaron reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Blocked indef as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1130870540 by TrangaBellam (talk) Dear TrangaBellam you are not obeying wiki policies. Do not revert good faith edits."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1130867590 by TrangaBellam (talk) All my edits are well described. Previous editors used old sources which are also not reputedly published. Please take a look, I did not removed any well sourced content."
 * 3)  "/* Caste status and contestations */ Removed poorly sourced primary content without interpretation. Annapurna, Sircar, Dutt all are old and not reputably published. We need modern reputably published sources to cite this information as per PRIMARY"

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

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

Comments:

This page has seen intense disruption from newbies. After a quiet few months, normalcy has resumed. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * FYI, since you have been involved with previous affairs on this page.
 * The locus of this bizarre edit-warring is Sigmaron's bid to declare the works of multiple reputed scholars (like Dineshchandra Sircar) as primary sources since, apparently, these scholars have written on primary sources without "interpreting" them! I asked them to take their concerns to RSN but was met with "I am well aware of wiki policies my friend." TrangaBellam (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * TrangaBellam did I oppose you to give any opinions of Dc Sircar, Annapurna, Dutt? I told you to not use them(because they are more than 60 years old) to give information based on primary sources like puranas, instead use new sources. Any opinion of Historians are always welcome on wikipedia. Sigmaron (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, First of all, happy new year to everyone. coming to content dispute, I did not break the 3RR rule. Dc Sircar book is 60 years old and has some medieval primary information and also that with no secondary scholarly interpretation, I asked TrangaBellam to use a new source from some reputed publishers as per WIKIPEDIA:PRIMARY. I do not have any issues with sources like Furui(2013). My efforts were to make wikipedia a better platform hence I removed those old sources.Sigmaron (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, TrangaBellam the BvP puran information is poorly sourced. No modern source mention Baidyas as Sat-sudras in BvP. I pinged you for your concern on Baidya talk page, but did not get any response. Sigmaron (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * as a sock. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * appears to have extraordinarily abilities; did not even use CU! TrangaBellam (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:173.89.137.51 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: and maybe (socking)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)


 * 1)

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:

Its getting a bit much, and no attempt to justify it. Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Salvio 20:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

User:CLalgo reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Article fully protected for one week; two editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1130973086 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk): Restored format, consistent for all weight classes. Per WP:BRD, please use the talk page before changing the table format."
 * 2)  "Restored revision 1130800735 by Raymarcbadz (talk): Please, do not remove information or citation from article, nor display unsourced information contradicting that in inline citations."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1130741489 by Raymarcbadz (talk): Restored  table,  structure, WP:DMY date format and more."
 * 4)  "/* Timeline */ Restored section"
 * 5)  "Restored revision 1130175824 by CLalgo (talk): Assuming deletion of sourced information was done in WP:GOODFAITH."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Judo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification."

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

Comments:
 * 1) The article in question is one I've created about two months ago and have been solely maintaining until this week, as I have made known to Sportsfan 1234.
 * 2) This past week, user  have started editing the page. Their edits, which I assumed were in good faith, were disruptive. Examples are:
 * 3) Section blanking
 * 4) Table breaking:
 * 5) Citation removing:
 * 6) Redirecting article to draftspace:
 * 7) Moving the article's talk page into draftspace, where it still is:
 * 8) Warnings have been posted on Raymarcbadz's talk page, urging them to stop with the disruptive edits: . The user have been suggested to use the article's talk page instead of disruptivly editing the article, and to talk about format changes before anacting them. Alas, to no end.
 * 9) I've tried to discuss the editor's format grievances, to explain WP:V & WP:NOTDONE: , to explain why their disruptive edits were reverted: . As you can see, all in vain.
 * 10) The reporter, Sportsfan 1234, entered the mix yesterday by removing citations:, and again removed citation after being reverted:.

I Ask for both Raymarcbadz & Sportsfan 1234 to be blocked from editing the article until a consensus about its format could be reached on its talk page, once it be restored to namespace. CLalgo (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, we gave you certain recommendations to improve the article. Seriously, you kept on contradicting our suggestions. I will discuss this matter on WT:OLY until the dispute is RESOLVED. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WE'RE IMPROVING ON THE ARTICLE. HONESTLY YOU DON'T CARE AND STICK TO THE FORMAT THAT YOU LIKE. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WHY DID YOU ARRANGE THE NATIONS IN IOC CODE? WHY DID YOU MENTION RUSSIA, KNOWING THAT IOC HAS SUSPENDED THE NATION? WHY DO YOU LIKE THE SOLID GRAY BORDER? DO OUR SUGGESTIONS MAKE YOU FEEL IRRITATED AND PISS YOU OFF? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've fully protected the article for one week. Both and  deserve blocks. Raymarcbadz has violated 3RR (and don't shout anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially not at an administrative noticeboard). CLalgo has edit-warred, and their comments smack of ownership. Both editors are warned that if there is the slightest indication of edit-warring, including restoring your versions, after protection expires, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I will report this issue on WT:OLY so other users and project managers may investigate on the differences smacked between the two of us. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please restore the article to its format before the edit began? And Draft talk:Judo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification should be return to mainspace as well. CLalgo (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that Raymarcbadz has deleted a comment of mine on WT:OLY. CLalgo (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to attribute that to inadvertent carelessness by while adding the tables comparison. I have restored your comment in threaded order. (I increased the indent for visual clarity.) Another admin has blocked Raymarcbadz for disruptive editing. —C.Fred (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC), amended 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was inadvertent, especially because of the move of the article Talk page to draft space. I've blocked Raymarcbadz for 24 hours for disruption. I've also deleted the draft and restored the article Talk page. As for reinstating a previous version of the article, see WP:WRONGVERSION.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, at lest you've made me smile. CLalgo (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm coming late to this discussion but yesterday I saw that Raymarcbadz had moved the existing article to Draft space and cut and pasted their own version into the main space page on the subject so they appeared to be the article creator. I merged the main space and the draft space versions so it was kind of natural that there would be a revert back to the article as it existed before it was moved to Draft space. I posted a warning to Raymarcbadz that it's not cool to hijack articles like this, a comment which he didn't respond to and removed from his User talk page. I think it's a wise move to protect this article until this dispute can be resolved, hopefully by involving more editors into the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Caucasoid Dave (Result:OP CU blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Obvious WP:BLOCKEVASION is obvious. OP is LTA Mikemikev. Generalrelative (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. Blocked. Doug Weller  talk 09:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Perfex78 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I think the context is quite different from the suggested option of User:Perfex78. As far as I can see, one more editor is of my opinion: StephenMacky1, so I have moved this rather questionably interpreted opinion of Kolozova for discussion but this did not help. I think also Perfex78 is WP:SPA. Jingiby (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We have Mrs Kolozova statement and objection literal word-for-word quoted reference, as I presented in the article. User StephenMacky1 and Jingiby engaged in revert war to delete that information from the page. Failing to do so, and delete the info from the article, they report me. Also Jingiby by accusing of WP:SPA does not assume good faith WP:AGF. Perfex78 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

User:General Ization reported by User:Maine Lobster (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Explicitly and intentionally reverting one of my edits.
 * 2)  Explicitly and intentionally reverting an edit of Rockchalk717.
 * 3)  Explicitly and intentionally reverting another one of my edits.
 * 4)  Explicitly and intentionally reverting an edit of PedigreeWWEFigz87V2.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

All of these reverts were made in the past 24 hours and restored General Ization's preferred version of the article on Damar Hamlin. Even though I told the user to stop edit warring, they deny that they are edit warring, and they are continuing to edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maine Lobster (talk • contribs)


 * At a quick look, the WP:BLP exemption will apply, since at least one of the reverts is to remove unsourced material from a high-traffic biography. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * All reverts listed, save one, fall within the realm of unsourced or poorly sourced material in a biography of a living person, so WP:3RRNO's exemption applies. is reminded to revert judiciously and to note that reverts of such material are per BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment from an WP:INVOLVED admin. This is not a good faith portrayal of the situation, as (a one-week-old account) has added poorly sourced content to that page, and removal is clearly a valid application of WP:BLP. Multiple individuals have engaged Main Lobster on the talk page to explain why unsourced or single-sourced tweets are inappropriate for the article. The removal of "not breathing" was justified because it was not present in the citation given. It is disingenuous to label these as an edit war. I also do not know what the point of noting the edits were "explicitly and intentionally" made. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:VQuakr (Result: 1-month partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "extremely poor-sourcing including for BLP content. Undid revision 1131341941 by Softlemonades (talk)"
 * 2)  "rmv poor, indiscrminate sourcing and inappropriate tiny minority opinion in lead. restore WaPo opinion piece"
 * 3)  "One hostile institution making a claim is not due weight for the lead. It’s already in the body. Rmv unnecessary citations to poor-quality sources that fail consideration of NPOV"
 * 4)  "views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. This "unique one of a kind" is not due for the lead"
 * 5)  "the daily beast is not a high-quality reliable source; where better sources report on things, they should be used. Undid revision 1131290854 by Softlemonades (talk)"
 * 6)  "bloomberg, the reliable source here, uses the phrase "thinly sourced stories about Clinton's health" - the exact quote. Undid revision 1131287136 by Softlemonades (talk)"
 * 7)  "clear language"
 * 8)  "statements at time of release"
 * 9)  "why anyone would insist on exclusively citing a self-published source when a perfectly good RS is available in 0.36 seconds of searching is beyond me"
 * 10)  "unsupported by sources or body"
 * 11)  "as sources, article body"
 * 12)  "Not lead material. We don’t privilege on Eid th 150 or so national intelligence services in the world"
 * 13)  "rmv  generally unreliable source WP:IBTIMES and deprecated source HuffPost contributors. A blog and the questionable source WP:VICE do not constitute due weight."
 * 14)  "rmv generally unreliable source WP:IBTIMES; reword poorly sourced section with attribution to source"
 * 15)  "rmv The Daily Beast - not a reliable source; no indication opinion is significant"
 * 16)  "+ comments; reword section with attribution"
 * 17)  "source follow"
 * 18)  "not lead material; unmentioned in body, inconsequential opinion of one journalist"
 * 19)  "relevant material from reliable source"
 * 20)  "break in long para"
 * 1)  "not lead material; unmentioned in body, inconsequential opinion of one journalist"
 * 2)  "relevant material from reliable source"
 * 3)  "break in long para"

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

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

Comments:
 * P-blocked for three months from the article. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * just wanted to point out, you've said here that you've p-blocked Cambial for three months, but on the block log and message on Cambial's talk page it's only one month. Just incase you want to clarify/fix whichever of the two numbers is the wrong one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Vanilabar reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: Partially locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1131271896 by Lemonaka (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1131238414 by Sharkslayer87 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1130650854 by Sharkslayer87 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1130426622 by Plrkiran1 (talk)"
 * 5) Another revert
 * 6) And another
 * 1) And another
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Komati (caste)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Emm, all has been explained on our edit summary, while Vanilabar seemed unresponsive to these contents just reverting back. Lemonaka (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Salvio 11:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:2C3:C57F:EF30:4844:44F0:2C4D:F26D reported by User:Herbfur (Result: /64 blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1131428390 by Aoi (talk) Not sure how to "get consensus." Please get a balanced and unbiased review before undoing any more of my changes."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1131426421 by LilianaUwU (talk) Removed misinformation that other uses keep re-adding. All sources are left wing, see AllSides.com, and this is proven not to be a scandal or quid pro quo."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1131426124 by Herbfur (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* White House chief of staff */  This section title Trump-Ukraine scandal is disinformation and simply a political attack. The other party involved President of Ukraine denied any pressure or quid prop quo from Trump."
 * 5)  "/* Office of Management and Budget */  Again had to remove political attack and disinformation from this site about the Trump-Ukraine scandal hoax."
 * 6)  "/* Conspiracy beliefs regarding COVID */  Calling the stated views as conspiracy beliefs demonstrates bias and error. The deep state is simply a reference to executive branch members who were not obeying their boss, the President, and instead working against him. The face of executive branch employees working to undermine Trump is a fact and many like Comey wrote books afterwards on how they did it."
 * 1)  "/* Conspiracy beliefs regarding COVID */  Calling the stated views as conspiracy beliefs demonstrates bias and error. The deep state is simply a reference to executive branch members who were not obeying their boss, the President, and instead working against him. The face of executive branch employees working to undermine Trump is a fact and many like Comey wrote books afterwards on how they did it."

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

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

Comments:

The editor is in violation of 3RR, despite efforts to direct discussion to the talk page and a warning on the user's talk page alerting them to our policy on edit warring. I feel a warning or a block may be warranted here to stop the edit war. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * /64 range blocked for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Slywriter reported by User:Hemiauchenia (Result: Both warned, another editor blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:06, 4 January 2023
 * 2) 05:54, 4 January 2023
 * 3) 5:36, 4 January 2023
 * 4) 04:06, 4 January 2023
 * 5) 04:05, 4 January 2023
 * 6) 03:49, 4 January 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:02, 4 January 2023 05:55, 4 January 2023

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Slywriter is grossly misreading the BLP policy. The accused's name is public knowledge and is openly used by major newspapers , and therefore doesn't fall under the libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced BLP exemption from the 3RR, especially for outside article space talkpage discussions. I admit I am also over the 3RR here (I cannot revert myself to go back under it, due to Slywriters reverts, though I would if I could do so), and I accept being blocked as a potential consequence of this report, if that is deemed necessary. Some of my edit summaries may have been unneccessarily combative, which I regret. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In addition to the reverts listed by @Hemiauchenia above, I would also note https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=1131431701&oldid=1131431484, which deleted one of my comments questioning Slywriter's rationale for edit warring. Slywriter later claimed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=1131432999&oldid=1131432883 that they wanted to revert the name of (redacted) out of the talk page rather than deleting my comment. Maine   🦞  06:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Slywriter has done nothing wrong, and is simply trying to omit the name of the suspect from the discussion until consensus is reached. Writing the name of the suspect in discussions defeats the entire purpose of keeping the name secret.  I filed a request at WP:CR to close the discussion at WP:BLPN, which was rejected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Both warned. Seriously guys, knock it off. Whilst I'm not going to invoke BLP here (because it's a grey area), it's probably the best idea to leave the name out of the discussion until a consensus has formed on whether to include it.  I am, however, blocking Maine Lobster for 48 hours for deliberately dropping the name into this page as well for no reason.  That's just simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply - My goal is only to keep the name off of Wikipedia (at least for now). What would you like for me to do differently? Also, the suspect name is STILL in the text and links at the BLPN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's gone now (while the discussion continues). Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged Not going to apologize for seeking to protect the privacy of a 10 yo but so see where my actions were poor and will utilize less disruptive measures in the future. Slywriter (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slywriter When it's an issue this contentious, especially when you're having to redact another editor's talk page comments, it's probably time to call for help at WP:ANI. I'm an admin, and even I go to ANI for assistance with users that I've had difficulty with—especially when I want a fresh set of eyes to look at the situation, where I've been engaged with the user for a while. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , issue with ANI and it's in one of my edit summaries is that going there would make the name more visible. However, I let frustration with a particular editor get the better of me and did not immediately use other less public channels. Slywriter (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Suspect name listed above
Listing the name of the suspect above at [06:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)] defeats the purpose of keeping it secret. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked and rev-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Reply - The last name of the suspect is still shown at WP:BLPN at [03:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is entirely ok as long as the context is what's been published by WP:RS... You're objecting to the name even appearing in a URL which is an absurd BLP overreach which makes it impossible to actually have a discussion about the sources. How can someone evaluate a source whose URL is being censored? How does that work? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:CerroFerro reported by User:Heavy Water (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [NOTE: As IP sanctions have been applied to this page, 1RR is all that is needed.]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (this was done manually by another user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (there were other attempts by me and others to resolve this there, but this was most relevant)

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

Comments:

As stated above, 1RR applies due to D/s for IP applying. CerroFerro has also made personal attacks against me such as this and claimed they are being "censored" by the "Wikipedia Establishment" when they were warned about D/s-typical tactics. Heavy Water (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)}}
 * 's last edit is a self-revert, so it looks like they are bringing themselves voluntarily back into to compliance to work through a discussion or other dispute resolution process. Accordingly, I think no action is necessary in this case. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just happened, but that's good. Thanks for taking a look. Heavy Water (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear Fred: Kindly let me know what my responsibilities will be regarding this recently initiated DR. I have already made my position abundantly clear, but will be happy to restate it. What you refer to as "edit warring" refers, I suppose to my principle stand on fidelity to legitimate sources. "Edit warring" can be equally applied to Heavy Water and Coffeeandcrumbs, but will can further discuss that on the DR forum. Until then, --CerroFerro (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @CerroFerro: I also recognize this is not the place for a protracted discussion about our dispute, but...edit warring is edit warring, whether you're "standing on fidelity" or not. Coffeandcrumbs, during the course of this dispute, has not made a single revert. I made 1 revert, which is within the 1-revert limit allowed on those pages. You, on the other hand, made 3 reverts. So no, edit warring is edit warring. Heavy Water (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As Billy Budd declared to Mr. Claggart, that is an "untruth" 03:51, 23 December 2022‎ Coffeeandcrumbs talk contribs‎ 20,780 bytes +149‎  ce and replace source undothank Tag: Visual edit: Switched --CerroFerro (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cute but wrong and irrelevant. You should really clean up that garbage on your userpage. It looks like the work of a vandal.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * True to form, the Wiki Administrators are always first to resort to personal attacks and troll-like behavior. Bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb23 --CerroFerro (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Due to their self-revert, CerroFerro is warned instead of blocked for violating a clear one-revert restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Eustatius Strijder reported by User:Merbabu (Result: Partial blocks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papua_conflict&diff=1131404253&oldid=1131171800

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: User:Juxlos has made a request for moderated discussion at DRN. I am willing to try to mediate, but only if the principals including User:Eustatius Strijder are warned to stop edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors were partially blocked from Papua conflict for one week by User:Primefac. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * An interesting result - as the reporter, I get blocked for four (4) reverts over 3 days, whereas the one I reported made a total of 19 reverts from them in the end. Serves me right perhaps? My first block in 17 years on wikipedia. --Merbabu (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:2A94:4000:19BB:2A55:E762:F435 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Semi-protected for six months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I Updated the information which can be verified by the World Bank cities ranking 2020 and the Gawc cities ranking 2018."
 * 2)  "I added more up to date information from the World bank."
 * 3)  "I added more up to date information for the Gawc cities ranking and the Global cities index. The information was taken from their last census of the year 2020."
 * 4)  "I added more information on Bogota's localities and population."
 * 5)  "I added more information on Bogota. My sources were taken by the World bank 2022 World cities census, where Bogota is described as being "one of the World's leading mega cities"."
 * 1)  "I added more information on Bogota. My sources were taken by the World bank 2022 World cities census, where Bogota is described as being "one of the World's leading mega cities"."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuation of some edit warring from December by from the same /64 range. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point the user has not edited at all since yesterday. Maybe the discussion on his talk page is leading him to re-evaluate his actions—that's how it's supposed to work. Of course, if he resumes ...
 * After seeing this page turn up at RFPP, gave it 10 days of semi-protection, and, unaware that he had done so, I gave it six months since as noted this user has gone on for a long time, and subsequent to my earlier comment another DC-area Verizon Business IP made a very similar edit. So, there goes my good faith.Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Egparvathi reported by User:Iwaqarhashmi (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added a news article"
 * 2)  "I added information."
 * 3)  "Added cast list"
 * 4)  "Added Summary."
 * 5)  "I created a new page, for an old serial which was telecasted on Asianet."
 * 1)  "Added Summary."
 * 2)  "I created a new page, for an old serial which was telecasted on Asianet."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Also it does not appear from the report that you made any attempt to resolve this on the talk page (Of course, it's unsourced, so you really couldn't do anything about it other than tell them that, but it still should have been tried). Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * While Egparvathi's edits appear to be disruptive in other ways, they aren't edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

User:TruthUpdater reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Similar edits made by Special:Contributions/198.151.8.4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebral726 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since both parties have stopped, I am inclined to do nothing at this time. Obviously, any resumption of edit warring would lead to a block, or multiple blocks, being applied. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Since the user reverted again after acknowledging that they are involved in an edit war, a block was necessary to prevent further dirsuption. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

User:74.218.80.66 reported by User:MasterMatt12 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1131839511 by HolyNetworkAdapter (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1131839225 by Wikipelli (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1131839087 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1131839044 by Wikipelli (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Broke 3RR MasterMatt12(talk) 00:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Spike 'em reported by User:92.30.244.104 (Result: Nominating editor blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Reverting vandalism by a blocked editor is not edit warring.Spike &#39;em (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:87.105.138.196 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ronnie James Dio discography."
 * 2)   "/* Ronnie James Dio discography */ new section"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ronnie James Dio discography."
 * 4)   "/* January 2023 */ + Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:TaylorD27 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again, Changed death to demise. if I have to speak with someone above me about this issue I do not mind. There is no problem with using the word Demise as it is the same definition as death."
 * 2)  "DEMISE= a person's death. (Until his grandmother’s death/demise). Demise definition literally means the same thing as death. no where in Wikipedia policy or rules does it states that the word demise can not be used. The word demise has been used for decades. thanks!"
 * 3)  "Please stop touching my edits when nothing is wrong with them. I will continue to fix it every time it is touched."
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edits by User:TaylorD27 */ new section"

Comments:

they've been warned about disruptive editing and edit warring, and been invited on their talk page and edit summaries to come join us on the talk page, where there is a discussion about their edits waiting for them to join in. To no avail. Jeff UK 09:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

my edits are continuously being reverted and touched with no proper reasoning. Nothing is wrong with the word demise as it means the same as death.this has been going on for some days now. I don’t understand why they won’t just leave my edits alone. My edits are not going against any Wikipedia rules or policy. Can someone please have the previous edits to stop touching my edits. As my edits are not effecting them or their daily lives in any way, shape, form or fashion. Thankyou

Taylor D27 09:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest you read WP:Dispute, and WP:Consensus, they will make your time here much more productive and much less stressful for everyone. Jeff UK 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I have read them all numerous of times. nothing about the word demise should be stressful to you or anyone else. Taylor D27 11:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you so insistent on using the word "demise"? (Also, is there a reason why you have imitated JeffUK's signature?) — Czello 11:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Czello. I actually do not mind talking to you because you are the only editor who has given a reasonable input on the revert. As with both agreed the word demise means the same thing, I feel as if it is more respectful to use the word demise when speaking on his grandmother. may I ask why is it such an uproar that I want to use that word as it does not go against any rules? Also I do not know what it is showing up on your end, I am using my iPhone at the moment.TaylorD27 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We don't have an obligation to be respectful, we simply report the facts in the clearest, most black-and-white language possible. "Demise" isn't encyclopedic, and can even be considered emotive. He died, so we say "death". Please leave it there rather than continuing to revert. — Czello 12:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thankyou for giving a clear reasoning on your revert instead of going back and forth like the other editors. And a clear answer. Have a great day TaylorD27 12:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Will you now self-revert your addition of "demise"? Since you pointed me to the talk page perhaps you should also see the thread there that links to MOS:EUPH - another reason why we don't say "demise". — Czello 12:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did self revert the “demise”. Thankyou for looking at it in both perspectives. Instead of making it seem like the word demise was illegal. also you have been very informative Czello thankyou. — TaylorD 12:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * TaylorD has self-reverted. Closing with no action. Salvio 16:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been a while since I've seen such disruptive editing as User:TaylorD27. They were reverted multiple times, by multiple editors, with the edit summary "per MOS:EUPH".  They were specifically invited to discuss their disruptive editing, and they chose instead to continue edit warring.  Had they taken a moment to actually read MOS:EUPH, they would have discovered that a consensus of editors had already agreed that edits such as theirs were unencyclopedic.  Their edits were disruptive and inappropriate.  Please caution them to refrain from this sort of behavior going forward, as it did nothing to improve the article, and wasted the time of several competent editors. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We ALL kept reverting the edit, not just me. As you thought that I was going to get in trouble. As Mr.Salvio has stated above. It was reverted several times by multiple editors including yourself Magnolia677.as this was a waste of all of our times. You were not helpful in this situation. The only person that was helpful was Mr.Czello. Again, Have a nice day! — TaylorD 18:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , in this case, there was no reason to block you, because blocks are preventative and not punitive, which means that, if the edit war has stopped without the need for them, then it would be inappropriate to block. That said, in future, please follow WP:BRD. You are encouraged to be bold and edit Wikipedia, but when you see that other editors disagree with you, you are supposed to stop reverting and start discussing. Salvio 18:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was getting no where. Czello was the only one helpful in the discussion. and gave his reasoning on the revert but still didn’t discredit mine but instead looked at both perspectives.also Thankyou for stepping in Salvio. have a nice day and have a safe weekend Taylor 19:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, "The discussion was getting no where". You didn't join the discussion.  Pay attention. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 You are pointless here. Not sure why you keep replying back here When it’s over. Czello handled it and so did Salvio.. enjoy your weekend <i style="color:#8000FF">TaylorD27</i> 12:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:193.92.24.113 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1132219446 by Czello (talk) I have indeed started a discussion on the talk page. If editors object they should really explain why."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1132218775 by Murgatroyd49 (talk) what was written before is POV of the British Museum. what is written now is neutral. it just labels the specific objects whose ownership is disputed. the fact that these specific objects are disputed is unquestionably noteworthy and useful for readers to know, especially since it seems they are going back soon to Athens!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1132216759 by Khiikiat (talk) absolutely no justification for removing this information"
 * 4)  "/* Department of Greece and Rome */  labelled the specific pieces in this department whose ownership is disputed by the Greek government and UNESCO"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Salvio 21:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Omnipotent Faith reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Sere also this edit, apparently by the same editor logged out. And still edit warring  while this report is open.
 * 1)  "Correction to history by J C Nichols' great grand-daughter, Eleanor's eldest grandchild, who is not a racist. Far from it."
 * 2)  "Correction by J C Nichols' great grand-daughter, Eleanor's eldest grandchild, who is not a racist. Far from it."
 * 3)  "Correcting history. Amendments made by J C Nichols' eldest grand-daughter."
 * 4)  "Correcting history. Amendments made by J C Nichols' eldest grand-daughter."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Note: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Comments:

Editor claims to be great granddaughter of article subject, and is repeatedly removing content. RolandR (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , from J. C. Nichols   Acroterion   (talk)   01:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

User:1.136.110.150 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates (UV 0.1.3)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Williamstown, Victoria."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disruptive editing, remove templates for no reason while edit warring against me. Check history, this clearly need a range block. Maybe /32? Lemonaka (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This user was already on a final warning for repeatedly removing maintenance templates on Williamstown, Victoria (thrice) and Spotswood, Victoria (twice) as   . Another  thrice on Williamstown, Victoria and once on Spotswood, Victoria as the new IP  makes 9 times in all. Has not technically broken 3RR on any one article with one IP, but enough already. Six times on one article and three times on another is edit warring no sign of ending, and disruptive. Meters (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * since the reverts added up to three separate violations. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Ignis Cheldon reported by User:TaivoLinguist (Result: Blocked)
Altaic languages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User:Ignis Cheldon has shown a very strong battleground mentality throughout the discussions on the article Talk Page despite numerous entreaties to stay polite and to assume good faith. In the section on the Talk Page where the section he added was being discussed he repeatedly resorted to personal attacks. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * From the very start you have used condescending, abusive and derogatory language towards me. You were first to have exhibited battleground mentality and repeatedly tried to provoke me to respond in kind. You even had to bring up my background. And when I asked you why you ignored my question. I am asking you again: why did you have to bring up my background? Ignis Cheldon (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You used an obvious and untrue pretext (too long and difficult to read) as a reason to thrice remove my work, on which I had spent an entire day yesterday. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please notice the following during the last two sections of the discussion:, , , , and .  Compare that with your most recent post:  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These are just a few of your provocations:
 * You can shout all you want, Ignis, but I've been editing here and been in the field of linguistics a lot longer than you have.
 * Your passion is overwhelming your reason, Ignis.
 * you continue to ignore the issue in your missionary zeal to push an agenda.
 * You use derogatory and condescending language in almost every post. You try to overwhelm the opponent by spamming massive texts and then accusing him or her of not reading them. I am asking you one more time: why did you have to bring up my background? I told you I speak Russian because years ago I was a visible minority there. Bu what did you try to gain by bringing that up? Ignis Cheldon (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * We have take into account that @IgnisCheldon might not have been aware of WP:3RR. So probably WP:ANI might the better place to address the actual problem behind it, i.e. the battleground behavior. Many comments of @IgnisCheldon boil down to "everyone who disagrees with me is a vandal and needs to be removed". That's not a good approach to participate in a collaborative project like WP. Note that this is NOT just a content dispute. Taivo and I also disagree in many ways about how to present the current scholarly assessment of the topic, but we do so "within normal parameters".–Austronesier (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly though, do you also believe these (the "Ethnolinguistic" section is too long and too detailed) are the true reasons to thrice remove the section?
 * In other words, do you really believe this section is too long and detailed? Or would you agree that was just a pretext to initiate this edit war?
 * Last but not least, you are evidently two staunch Anti-Altaicists with a long history of maintaining this top priority project at the underperforming C-class level. The lead section clearly contains blatantly biased and outdated statements. You have openly admitted that you do not spend much time improving this project. You have also exhibited a consistent behaviour of removing everything that does not correspond to your views, just like you are doing right now. The two of you constitute a "consensus" against any well-intentioned editor who wishes to update the project and remove the obvious bias.
 * Now, when this well-intentioned editor brings modern (last 3 years) evidence that flies in the face of your views, how do you sugget he or she is supposed to overcome your "consensus"? Thank you. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Persuading either the editors at issue or enough outside editors to form your own consensus is the way such a situation is overcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have anyone else, sorry. I'm alone. And trust me, I have tried to persuade these two. No use. They simply remove literally everything I contribute. Would you say the section they have removed is too long, too detailed and too difficult to read like they claim? Or would you agree that is only a pretext? Ignis Cheldon (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have to agree with the other editors; first of all, I firmly believe that reasonable minds may differ on a given subject, and so I see no reason at all to think their given reasons are pretextual. Secondly, while I think the section is a fine bit of writing, I do think it is a bit much for the sort of generalist readership at which this encyclopedia is aimed.  If you would like to try to explain why I am wrong, I am more than willing to listen on the article talk page or on my talk page.  I am probably a decent test subject, since I have a decent grounding in linguistics in general, but passing familiarity at best with the history and study of Altaic languages.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for this assessment. What would you suggest me to do now? Obviously these two are not going to let me add ANYTHING, no matter how detailed it is. Ignis Cheldon (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is a large bit of text -- which again, is not meant pejoratively, but makes seeking consensus that much harder. With apologies to Desmond Tutu, the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.  Pick out a claim or two that you think particularly important and that can be succinctly summarized.  In general it is much easier to proceed piecemeal than in grand edits, if less satisfying.  As ever, it's entirely possible I am wrong about something or everything, but I'll happily give you an honest opinion if you'd like one.  I am familiar enough with your two interlocutors here to say that there is not a doubt in my mind that they have the best interests of the site at heart; that doesn't make them right or mean that they can't sometimes be a bit sharp-elbowed.  I've seen enough of you to reach the same conclusion.  Let me be clear though, that I don't say this out of some abstract sense of civility.  The site is at its best when we are accurately understanding other editors (even those with whom we disagree), and it is when we can craft the most compelling and forceful arguments.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "there is not a doubt in my mind that they have the best interests of the site at heart"
 * In that case why is the project in question, that is supposed to accurately relate the history of the languages of 400+ million speakers (including yours truly), is in such a sorry state? And I can't add relevant information about the ancient history of MY OWN ancestors? Ignis Cheldon (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because all human endeavours are messy in our sublunary world. We rely here on reliable sources rather than claims to authority whether from heritage or any other source.  I often edit in spaces wherein I could claim some sort of expertise, but that's not helpful nor what this project is about.  I'd encourage you to keep trying to nudge things in a better direction and trust that most other people are tr6ying to do the same.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "and trust that most other people are trying to do the same."
 * A proposition a bit difficult to entertain after this... Ignis Cheldon (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Salvio 09:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:8C:C200:41E0:E009:B369:903D:328A reported by User:FlightTime (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1132897951 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"
 * 3)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"
 * 4)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"
 * 5)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"
 * 6)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"
 * 1)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"
 * 2)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"
 * 3)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"
 * 4)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"
 * 1)  "/* Puppeteering credits */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See trib's at 2601:8C:C200:41E0:E009:B369:903D:328A, lso see

I have reverted three times, won't do another. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 04:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Indagate reported by User:CastJared (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The source Harper's Bazaar claims that it's estimated to premiere on Fall 2023/Winter 2024, but it caused three reverts. CastJared (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , well partially blocked to be precise. Salvio 13:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:6C4A:737F:F4AD:8F7:DBFA:7C6E:DF94 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked for a month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Simply a WP:TE vandal. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Denbrewers reported by User:Mellk (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:37, 10 January 2023
 * 2) 00:47, 10 January 2023
 * 3) 00:52, 10 January 2023
 * 4) 00:54, 10 January 2023
 * 5) 00:55, 10 January 2023
 * 6) 01:01, 10 January 2023

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:

Several reverts (including 4 within 10 minutes) against multiple editors in the space of half hour with no edit summaries and no response to warnings. Brand new account. Probably needs WP:NOTHERE block. Mellk (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked. Given the nature of the edits, I decided disruption was more accurate than NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)