Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive464

User:86.141.92.231 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  First revert on 10:30, 8 January 2023.
 * 2)  Second revert on 10:41, 8 January 2023.
 * 3)  Third revert on 11:12, 8 January 2023.
 * 4)  Fourth revert on 11:25, 8 January 2023.
 * 5)  Fifth revert on 11:35, 9 January 2023.

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

Comments:

86.141.92.231/86.137.14.137 (dynamic IP) has wracked up 5 reverts in just over 24 hours at First Iraqi–Kurdish War. The same dynamic IP has also been edit-warring at Iraqi invasion of Iran and Iraqi no-fly zones conflict.

The IP's edits almost always fail verification with even a brief, cursory examination or are attributed to unreliable/self-published sources (e.g. this edit, citing a book by a former U.S defense contractor self-published through AuthorHouse, which also does not support the IP's claims). Additionally, all of the IP's edits involve adding factually incorrect or unsupported claims of "Iraqi victory" to article infoboxes contrary to the IP's cited sources and in contradiction to the body of each respective article (the articles describe Iraqi failures or military stalemates). For example, the IP described the Iraqi invasion of Iran as an "Iraqi tactical and military victory," even though the IP's cited source called it a tactical defeat leading to "a military stand-off."

Even when, at my insistence, the IP quotes the sources directly, he appears to be too incompetent to accurately parse/summarize them; in this edit, for example, the IP simply pretends that, because the Iraqi no-fly zones "did not get [Saddam] out of office," and because "sanctions did not prevent him from obtaining WMD" (spoiler alert: they did; the source is actually rejecting the argument in question!) that means "The no-fly zones which the coalition imposed to reduce Iraq's military capability failed, and did not prevent Saddam Hussein from attacking Kurds and Shiites" (watered down from the IP's previous, even more extravagant claims of "Coalition failure," "Iraqi tactical victory," and "The coalition failed to enforce the no-fly zones it imposed to reduce Iraq's military capability").

I am asking that the aforementioned articles (and possibly Operation Dawn 9 and 1991 Iraqi uprisings as well, though the IP's claims of "Iraqi victory" have not yet been challenged there) be extended-confirmed protected to avoid more tendentious edit warring by this single-purpose dynamic IP promoting nonexistent "Iraqi victories".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For protection, put in a request at RFPP if you haven't already. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Oblast0 reported by User:Iwaqarhashmi (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Change Informations Pages"
 * 2)  "Modification life prosper Masquelier"
 * 3)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
 * 3)   "ONLY Warning: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (RW 16.1)"
 * 4)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
 * 5)   "ONLY Warning: Vandalism (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Comments:

Engaged in an edit war  Waqar 💬 15:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * – CU block by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

User:79.244.51.59 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1132766612 by Ahunt (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1132614645 by Malerooster (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1132505218 by Malerooster (talk)Revert vandalism"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverting edit(s) by 79.244.51.59 (talk) to rev. 1132766612 by Ahunt: Personal attacks towards another editor (UV 0.1.3)"

Comments:

both 3RR and NPA on a that page. Lemonaka (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And disruptive editing altogether. Blocked for 72 hours. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:40, 10 January 2023 (UTC).

User:2601:8C:C200:41E0:E009:B369:903D:328A reported by User:FlightTime (Result: /64 blocked 24h)
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)
 * The entire /64 range. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Rstrug reported by User:Solaire the knight (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

A user is waging a relentless edit war on the article, demanding sources to criticize capitalism in the show (as far as I understand, with a clear desire to achieve the subsequent removal of this), despite the fact that showrunners have repeatedly said in interviews that the show criticizes gun companies and the excessive influence of corporations in general, and that all this can be easily see in the show itself, which is quite open with its message. Examination of the user's talk page, as well as attempts to get him to stop the edit war through discussion, showed that the user has already been warned more than once for edit wars in articles of a political or ideological nature, and also clearly has a conflict of interest in relation to said criticism, considering it "communist propaganda." In general, attempts to somehow resolve the issue through discussions were not successful, the user simply pulled out dry formulations from the rules and uses them as an excuse for a further war of edits and universal answers to opponents. By the way, this is already the fourth war of edits in the article over the past month and a half, because of which the article was even protected from anonymous edits. So I wouldn't mind if the article was edit-proof at all, at least for a while. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is how the attempt to draw the user's attention to the senselessness of his conflict in the context of the well-known and never hidden views of the authors and the content of the franchise ended. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * since you are trying to hash it out on the talk page. A good idea, since it's really not a good look to multiply revert another editor's addition of a fact tag. I'm actually surprised that doesn't come under WP:3RRNO. Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand how it looks from the outside and I would not have problems if I had also been punished. I just took it as a conflict of interest and playing with the rules, as the writers were almost open about it in interviews and the show itself clearly did not try to hide it with criticism of the excessive influence of corporations in politics. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But he's right that you need to cite a source. It seems to me that you could. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if the specified source is already used in the article, and the truth of the statement could be easily verified just by watching the show? In addition, the user does not even hide that he questions this particular statement due to political motives. As another user rightly said, there are other moments in the preamble without sources, but they are not of interest to the user. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

User:SergeiEisen reported by User:Mellk (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Edit warring to restore antisemitic conspiracy theory comment. No other contributions. Mellk (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Judea officially announced its declaration of war against Germany in March 1933. (SergeiEisen (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC))

Its almost certainly a sock, of Harvey someone. They have been blocked repeatedly and keep coming back. PP maybe in order. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeffed as VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And they will be back with another account. Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're thinking of Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter, which is open as I write this with a CU request.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats the fella. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:Ars Nova Cadenza (Result: Reporter indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

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: User has reverted the inclusion of this edit no less than six times in the past few days, despite warnings and being a prolific editor who clearly knows better.


 * 3RR was not broken, latest reverts were explained vis-a-vis WP:BLPREMOVE and on talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I was filing this report before the report was itself filed. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, I've struck my accusation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Reporter indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Ars Nova Cadenza reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1133208324 by Sangdeboeuf (talk) Continued edit warring by user Sangdeboeuf, any further reverts by them on this issue will violate 3RR"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1133207144 by Sangdeboeuf (talk) Continued edit warring, on verge of 3RR"
 * 3)  "Edit warring"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1133192692 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) At least bother to read the sources before you claim they "do not mention Caraballo". Two of the three do, and the other source is to support the statement of Caraballo's remarks being made after a murder attempt on Justice Kavanaugh."
 * 5)  "Restored and expanded section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They mention 3RR in their edit summaries, so they are obviously aware. VQuakr (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I informed them about BLP rules and discretionary sanctions before that last revert
 * They also created a talk page topic with a clearly defamatory/libelous title Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not defamatory or libelous, the title itself does not even make any positive claims. I created that topic in good faith to discuss Caraballo's remarks as they relate to an attempted attack on a Supreme Court Justice, and their inclusion in the article. Am I not even allowed to discuss that? Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As written, the "&" implies an attempted attack *by* the subject of the sentence. I suppose if you replace "&" with "on", your interpretation makes sense. "Potentially defamatory" would've been better of me to say. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit labeled "5" I made as my own edit to restore a section of the article, and "4" was a revert targeting a specific expansion to that section that someone else reverted. After the person in question reverted it once more, I did not revert it again. As for reverts "1, 2, 3" they were simply made to order to revert a different user's edit warring, and I deliberately have not reverted it since, so as to not violate the 3RR. If I have violated the 3RR, it was not my intention to, hence my not continuing to revert the material in question since. Ars Nova Cadenza (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering that ANC mentioned 3RR in their edit summaries, they have known that 3RR applies to  reverts to a page within 24 hours, not just reverts to the same material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:37.163.210.35 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Content dispute; page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1133186008 by M.Bitton (talk) Algerian nationalist and anti-Moroccan POV edit. The topic is obviously relevant to the article and the sources are more than fine to write that the Moroccan king "intended to demostrate" something. There is not a "and succeded" or "and failed" written part that would need other kinds of sources. Stop edit warring with bad reverts"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1133180174 by M.Bitton (talk) Algerian nationalist and anti-Moroccan POV edit. The topic is obviously relevant to the article"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1133154374 by M.Bitton (talk) Unjustified revert and removal of sourced information"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1119294126 by M.Bitton (talk) Relevant and sourced information removed, POV edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Algeria–South Sudan relations."
 * 2)   "/* January 2023 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * The personal attacks aside (see edit summaries), this diff shows them blanking their talk page (removing the 3R warning) before continuing the edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @M.Bitton is blocking any edit he doesn't like for POV reasons. That's apparently something he does quite often, as you can see even in many other articles (just look at his contributions and at his "debates" with other users) anytime anything goes against his personal ideas. His tactic is to call for a new consensus without actually having any intention to discuss and then stopping responding. And that only after spamming bad reverts with insulting or belittling edit summeries (see 1, for example) and projecting by accusing anyone else of pushing a POV. Both things he would start doing again if someone tried to edit his "personal" articles after his abandonment of the discussions. That's not constructive at all. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You willingly broke the 3R policy and kept casting aspersions. These are the facts. M.Bitton (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the facts are the ones I wrote about. You are stonewalling every article you are interested about because of your nationalist POV, and arbitrarily trying to decide when a consensus is establihed or not. Also your opinion about sources that contradict your ideas is obviously biased, and you just ignore the ones that you don't like. See your edits about "mahkazian cheerleaders" here, in this case, or again any other discussion made by you. Also, I forgot in my last comment to write about your hypocrisy of accusing me of something bad for deleting your warning after you did the same to mine (posted after you were edit warring against not only me but another user as well.) 37.163.210.35 (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks, sigh... Anyway, if anyone else can work out how this irrelevant opinion belongs in that article, please let me know. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently any criticism of you is a "personal attack", according to you. And in my talk page I already explained why that's relevant. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that they did the same thing on Algeria–South Sudan relations. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Also here, casting aspersions for no reason whatsoever (the sources are obviously in the Argania article). M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering how the phrase "which is indigenous to Morocco and southwestern Algeria" is written, it could call "indigenous" both the plant and the oil (as an indigenous product). For the plant there were sources, for the oil there weren't. As you can see, when you added them I stopped editing, because I don't stonewall articles like you do. Also, since you keep accusing me of personal attacks and casting aspersions, here is a small list of examples of everything I wrote until now. It's incomplete, because I didn't want to look up every single discussion and edit you made until now.
 * 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ibn_al-Banna%27_al-Marrakushi
 * Ignoring reputable sources because of OR (“That's a fact!” is not a valid source on Wikipedia)
 * 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harissa#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_4_December_2022
 * Ignoring reputable sources because of POV (multiple sources referring to specifically Tunisia ignored for no reason)
 * 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tajine#November_3,_2022:_image
 * Editing someone else’s comment
 * 4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tajine#December_2018
 * Uncooperative discussion (bad faith and accuse of sockpuppetry)
 * 5 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tajine#Removing_source_from_lead
 * Removing reputable sources for no reason and refusing to discuss
 * 6 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aghlabids#September_2022
 * Ignoring the actual content of a misinterpreted source after if was posted and abandoning the discussion
 * 7 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pastilla
 * Ignoring the actual content of a misinterpreted source after if was posted and abandoning the discussion
 * 8 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_numerals
 * Ignoring sources and POV pushing
 * 9 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Political_status_of_Western_Sahara
 * Ignoring sources and POV pushing
 * 10 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_Bassiri
 * Insulting and unconstructive tone and words in comments (“clownish”, “cherrypicked crap”)
 * 11 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahrawi_nationality_law
 * Unconstructive tone and personal attacks
 * As you can see I didn't make anything up. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * here is a small list of examples of everything I wrote until now I can't ignore the lapsus, but regardless, here's the proof that the IP (most likely a blocked editor) is here to settle an old score (which also explains the personal attacks from the get-go). It's hard to guess who's behind this, but I'm sure a CU will probably work it out (starting with the first article that they linked to). M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * For my money, you are both edit warring and are both liable to be blocked. I'd rather not have to block either of you, though, because in general it's always better when content disputes are solved by discussion. So, please, stop reverting each other and follow WP:DISPUTE. Salvio giuliano 19:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you and will do. There is also the Algeria–South Africa relations (reported above as part of the same dispute) that needs protecting if you don't mind. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:WikiEditor1234567123 reported by User:Simba16 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

The user removes information confirmed by historical document. He is already blocked in Russian Wikipedia for fake information and edit war. In English Wikipedia he created article which by one of skilled users is called "lunacy". Simba16 (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Several IPs / their user user account reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: No action)
Page:

Users being reported:

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

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

This person did technically not violate 3RR, as they were unable to continue their edit warring due to the article getting protected. However, soon after the protection expired, they resumed their edit warring. I have already reported them to WP:ANI for WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND, though it's going rather slow over there. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

it is interesting. Instead of talking about the content, he reports me and wants to delete! I am sorry ! This is not professional behavior. I add my content with the source and according to Wikipedia rules. I will open an account soon and will do so. 178.131.133.60 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No action, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is thataway. Salvio giuliano 18:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:CtasACT reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1133441720 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 2)  "Removed the source which has been causing trouble, other edits which revert these two sources, will be considered edit war unless a talk discussion page is created prior and resolved!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1133431869 by Bon courage (talk)"
 * 4)  "Coffee beans trace back to Ethiopia highlands study from MDPI and Cambridge University which i have cited which states "Arabica coffee Coffea arabica originates from Ethiopian montane forests" also   [Taylor & Francis] as source, please don't just revert my edit just because you don't like the source, i have cited 3 different sources including a respected University, whether or not you like it, it's yours but don't revert my edit unless you cite your evidence also, thank you!"

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

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

Comments:
 * Blocked before I saw this. 3 days partial from that page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:CtasACT (Result: Reporter already blocked)
Page: Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:11, 13 January 2023 Mr. Ollie engaged in edit warring by reverting my edit which i cited.

20:41, 13 January 2023 Mr. Ollie does the same thing while i explain the reasons of his wrongdoing

21:14, 13 January 2023‎ Mr. Ollie does the same thing while i explain to Mr. Ollie that edits should not be conducted and removed while citations are given unless a talk page is created by the party which disagrees first!

Therefore, i ask an admin to block Mr. Ollie for trying to spam and disorganized an article which i cited proper sources thereof.

‎ CtasACT (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No violation by . had breached 3RR. I was going to block them, but they are already partial blocked, so I will take no further action. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, Wikipedia has become corrupted, never have i heard in my life that Cambridge University citations would result in the block. I will precede to delete this account due to unfair Wikipedia admins, the policies are not the problem, but the people who execute them. CtasACT (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The citations have nothing to do with the block; your behavior does. If you are unwilling to abide by the rules, thank you for leaving rather than causing more trouble. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Causing trouble by giving citations, very evil and anarchistic of you guys, NEVER IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO DUE SUCH A THING. Anyways Wikipedia is a good source, but the people contributing and admins like you are pathetically evil. CtasACT (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bumped up to a full block for personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The user is now messing around on WikiCommons . Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ++ Shakes head, points ears, looks askance, you know ++
 * "That MrOllie ay, what can you do" I ask. -Roxy the dog 22:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * MDPI was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory open access publishing companies in 2014[17][18] but was removed in 2015 following a successful appeal[16][17] [...] Some journals published by MDPI have also been noted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Norwegian Scientific Publication Register ... for lack of rigour and possible predatory practice. The whole argument over the cited article(s) looks overblown. Neither statements like thank you for leaving rather than causing more trouble nor the response admins like you are pathetically evil are warranted because of an disagreement over the origin of Coffee (and neither for Covid or Covfefe ; in the case of Covid it's up to the investigation of the new House;).--Myosci (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Wahem Hossain reported by User:SamX (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "som"
 * 2)  "Iam his son,"
 * 3)  "Iam his son,"
 * 4)  "Iam his son,"
 * 5)  "Iam his son,"
 * 6)  "I am Wahem Hossain Chowdhury, Founder and CEO of WAHEMIAN'S CREATIVITY. I started my professional creativity career in 2010. I have been interested in and passionate about graphics and design since childhood. I used to draw or sketch on book covers and homework copies. And these were the signs of my creativity and passion, which later turned toward design.
 * 1)  "I am Wahem Hossain Chowdhury, Founder and CEO of WAHEMIAN'S CREATIVITY. I started my professional creativity career in 2010. I have been interested in and passionate about graphics and design since childhood. I used to draw or sketch on book covers and homework copies. And these were the signs of my creativity and passion, which later turned toward design.

To make my passion a reality, I started my YouTube career in 2020 with a page. I learned the basics of digital design from one of my fri..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Creating autobiographies on Saber Hossain Chowdhury."
 * 2)   "cmt, advice"
 * 3)   "Warning: Hijacking articles."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Claims to be the son of the article's subject, and has been attempting change the article's topic to himself. Not sure whether or not this is suitable for AIV, so I'm reporting it here. --SamX 06:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Salvio giuliano 09:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Neildon Garcia reported by wolf (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (as Neildon Garcia)
 * 1) (2023-01-14T06:29:40‎)
 * 2)
 * 3)

(as 49.144.171.169)
 * 1)
 * 2)  (2023-01-13T12:09:13‎)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (for Neildon Garcia) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (for 49.144.171.169)

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

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

Comments: Straight 4RR vio (5RR actually) using two accounts, first the IP account (only edits are these reverts), then the newly created account, (again, only edits are these reverts). I made the final revert, the intervening reverts made befoe/after this user were made by two other users; Fnlayson and Trappist the monk. Thanks - w o lf  07:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Salvio giuliano 09:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

User:189.94.172.108 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Musical style */Allmusic, Arizona Republic, The A.V. Club and Stereogum say pop-metal. Only Rolling Stone source says glam metal."
 * 2)  "Genres in order by number of sources. See "Musical style" section"
 * 3)  "See "Musical style" section. No sources for pop metal"
 * 4)  "my bad"
 * 5)  "Sourced as glam metal, hard rock and power pop. See "Musical style" section"
 * 1)  "my bad"
 * 2)  "Sourced as glam metal, hard rock and power pop. See "Musical style" section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Level 1 Genre changes."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Photograph (Def Leppard song)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The first edit is the original edit; it is not counted as a revert. And the "my bad" one is a self-revert. Plus, you did not attempt to open discussion with him. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Yesterday at 11:48 PM
 * 2) Yesterday at 11:01 PM
 * 3) Yesterday at 9:27 PM
 * 4) Yesterday at 11:38 AM

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments:

This is the third straight 3RR violation by the user on this page in the past 1 month and he has already been blocked twice,,. A dispute resolution is ongoing and yet to be resolved but the user interpreted it as a consensus. In any case, the reverts do not fall under any exemptions. A.Musketeer (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Moderated discussion was ongoing at Dispute Resolution, the moderator gave me permission to insert my lede so I did so. This report is grotesque and absurd, an attempt to try and frustrate the will of the DR moderator and ensure a favourable result for the opposing editors.—AMomen88 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While I sympathise with you, that does not justify edit warring. Salvio giuliano 18:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * . partially blocked for the same duration.  Salvio giuliano 18:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Goharocko reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Both partially blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rephrased, Almoravids are the 2nd major Islamic dynasty to rule from morocco after the Idrissids, I find no valid reason for the last revert, as that is widely accepted by the academic community and is not an over-simplification."
 * 2)  "Clarified that the Almoravids are the 2nd dynasty of morocco, added an academic source from the University of New York listing the Islamic dynasties  of morocco in chronological order, last edit was reverted and I wasn't given a reason as to why."
 * 3)  "Typo, rephrased for the sake of fluidity."
 * 4)  "Clarified that Almoravids were the 2nd dynasty of morocco, added academic source."
 * 5)  "Abdallah ibn Yasin was the spiritual leader and co-founder of the almoravids, please refrain from deleting his name with no valid reason."
 * 1)  "Abdallah ibn Yasin was the spiritual leader and co-founder of the almoravids, please refrain from deleting his name with no valid reason."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoharocko&diff=1132670167&oldid=1132669375

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Almoravid movement's birth place and it's co-founder */"

Comments:
 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Socksage reported by User:Shibbolethink (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 17:36, 16 January 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:25, 16 January 2023 "No WP:BLP vio exists as all claims are “supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.” Undid revision 1134085954 by Shibbolethink (talk)"
 * 2)  "As per WP:BLPUNDEL and my previous restoration message, it has been demonstrated that this content complies with Wikipedia's content policies. No substantiated concerns have been put forward about this content. Undid revision 1134084202 by Sideswipe9th (talk)"
 * 3) "All three sources are secondary reliable sources. One is a published in the journal American Family Physicians, one is published National Library of Medicine, and the final one is published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. All claims made are supported by one of these citations, and there is no “original research.” To revert this addition, please explain which claim or citation you take issue with in detail. Undid revision 1134079363 by Sidesw"
 * 4)  "Add more information with three relevant citations."
 * 1)  "Add more information with three relevant citations."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "new topic (CD)"

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

Comments:

Additional efforts at resolution: User warning another of edit warring while engaging themselves in introducing defamatory material:

User is essentially edit warring to restore content repeatedly that defames the subject in violation of WP:BLP and especially WP:BLPRESTORE.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * . Page blocked for 1 week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Maungapohatu reported by User:46.183.103.8 (Result: Nominator blocked as open proxy for 3 months, also disruption)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691&diff=1134039550&oldid=1134039148

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691&diff=prev&oldid=1134041743
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691&diff=prev&oldid=1134045157
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691&diff=prev&oldid=1134051566
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691&diff=prev&oldid=1134052786

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maungapohatu&diff=1134053233&oldid=1134052169 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691&diff=1134052891&oldid=1134051253

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yeti_Airlines_Flight_691&diff=1134052891&oldid=1134051253

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maungapohatu&diff=1134055747&oldid=1134054258

Comments:

46.183.103.8 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP's block log shows a year's worth of gradually lengthened blocks as an open proxy, and having just been released from one of them it was due for another, so since I as a human can go further than the bot I have blocked for 3 months. Even if that weren't an issue, this is sort of a no-brainer. The reported user was entirely within policy as the edits the reporter sought to restore violated BLP. I particuarly direct attention to what the user claims is their attempt to open discussion on the article talk page: a warning to stop or they'll get reported and blocked. Yup, that works every time ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case "violated BLP"? This is not a BLP article.
 * The reporting editor was within policy IMO - they disagreed with adding unverified video clips to an article, because a recognised expert challenged their authenticity. — kashmīrī  TALK  23:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, first, you reverted the nominator's edit as well, in the same way. Second, per BLP itself: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia" Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case: Calling a video "fabricated" may merit a revert, but does it a three-month block? Re. BLP, you must be confusing this editor with someone else. The IP has made no recent edits that would be in any way linked to any biography or any living person as far as I could see.
 * Don't get me wrong – I'm neither challenging nor defending the video. I simply believe that civil discussions about authenticity of a video clip placed prominently on Wikipedia (the article is currently linked from the main page) should not be supressed. — kashmīrī  TALK  23:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I noted, the IP has been repeatedly blocked over the past year as an open proxy. Those blocks were getting to almost a month in length. It was already blocked in October for other reasons. If the times when it was open are going to lead to editors like this, we do well to block it for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Philomathes2357 reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 2023-01-18T03:48:44

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2023-01-18T04:17:05‎
 * 2) 2023-01-18T04:34:15
 * 3) 2023-01-18T04:43:20
 * 4) 2023-01-18T04:51:25
 * 5) 2023-01-18T06:24:48
 * 6) 2023-01-18T06:43:42

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2023-01-18T04:37:02 (warning issued between 2nd and 3rd revert above per timestamps)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cliven Bundy

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2023-01-18T05:35:53

Comments:


 * Note that is claiming they are exempt from 3RR because of BLP concerns, however, the discussion on the talk page is not exactly a consensus that it is a BLP concern. BLP is important, but at the end of the day we still operate on consensus and no consensus exists for the edits Philomathes2357 is attempting to force through. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: I also warned this editor of 3RR/EW however, I then noticed the warning that was placed previously (the warning diff above) that this editor removed. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit: Added two additional diffs of reverts, editor refuses to back away from their claim of BLP exemption to 3RR, see edit history at . They have been reverted by three unique editors thus far. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * BLP violations do not require consensus to remove. In fact, BLP states:
 * " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
 * The content in question is unambiguously BLP-violative. I invited the two users who expressed disagreement to 1) open an RFC about how to source and attribute the violative sentence, or 2) re-write the violative sentence to make it comply with BLP. Here is the thread I made on this at the BLP noticeboard. The fact that one editor disagrees, while accusing me of being a "nazi", "whitewashing", and "trolling", is not sufficient to justify maintaining BLP-violative content, and I will continue to remove it if it is re-inserted. In fact, the conduct of the editor who persistently re-introduced the content is questionable, in my view, and would warrant closer scrutiny by administrators than my own in regards to this matter. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The content is very longstanding content that enjoys tacit community consensus, so it is not concerning enough to be a BLP concern. It's basically sky is blue knowledge about his public stance on several issues and not sensitive personal information.
 * With your numerous warnings, this behavior reveals an incurable edit warring mentality we cannot allow. I move for an indef block this time. Before I thought an AP2 topic ban might help, but that clearly won't work, hence a ban. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This user has been disruptive in far more ways than edit warring. A simple glance at their talk page proves that, not to mention their extremely tedious sealioning and bludgeoning at The Greyzone, Joe Biden, and MOS talk. Dronebogus (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Please block immediately. This is getting crazy. Repeated warnings from several editors are not working. Philomathes2357 continues to edit war. The content is basic and well-known information in the lead based on sourced content in the body. It is not sensitive BLP information. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * They also just forum-shopped their way onto the BLP noticeboard when their edit war went south, just like the MOS/The Greyzone masacree. Dronebogus (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they immediately delete unfavorable content from their talk page, it looks fairly clean, but an examination of the actual talk page history tells a very different story, one of an edit warrior who is constantly being warned and getting in trouble. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 07:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a thread about the specific edits reported by @Locke Cole. I'd like to know what uninvolved administrators have to say about those edits as they apply to the text BLP which I quoted. I'm done removing the content, even though I think it's clearly unsourced and BLP-violative, because I don't feel like having a pissing contest with a bunch of people who have been assuming bad faith on my part. You've made it more than clear that you don't like me for other reasons, but let's discuss those other reasons elsewhere. Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a thread about your edit-warring... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, so as someone with no previous experience of the dispute or the user (the first such respondent in this thread so far I think), my observations are mixed. I actually think Philomathes might have a cognizable BLP argument here.  It's weakened a little by some obvious WP:SYNTH stretching they did at times in the Bundy talk page discussions, but they are correct in a more general sense that any controversial descriptor ought to be directly attributable to at least one source.  Potentially controversial statements are not consistent with WP:BLUESKY, even if that principle were expressed in something more than an essay, which cannot trump an important policy like WP:BLP (or WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:ONUS, or WP:NEUTRAL for that matter).  I don't think Bundy is being mis-characterized in the slightest by the content that Phil is challenging, but challenged they have, and the burden is upon the parties wishing to retain the content to meet the WP:RS showing expected.  I can't imagine there is not a cite to be found that meets the RS standard for these facts.


 * On the other hand, Philomathes is clearly being highly WP:TENDENTIOUS and dismissive of appropriate process and consensus. Aside from the blatant WP:3RR violations (though I observe it takes at least two to tango...), they blew right past WP:BRD.  WP:BLP is not a magic talisman to be waved around, abrogating a member of this community from following the normal dispute resolution processes.  Philomathes, even if you think you have that policy as a solid basis for your preferred outcome, you still have to abide by all behavioural and proecedural requirements in policy for forging a consensus decision.  In short, if you find yourself going against what almost everybody else involved in a given dispute is arguing for, and your edit would change established, status quo content, it's time to slow down and avail yourself of the afore-mentioned dispute resolution processes, rather than charging forward and trying to enforce your edits by fiat.  If you really do have the right end of the stick on the policy and sourcing, you should prevail with enough community exposure to the dispute.  And if you happen to be misinterpreting community consensus in the content in question, you will save yourself the trouble of being seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE for something that was never going to stay.  So you win either way by keeping your cool and avoiding an edit war at all costs.


 * So, I'm not sure what the solution is here. I don't know why Philomathes did not open the RfC they proposed themselves before edit warring.  Perhaps that can still be a solution on the content side.  Behaviourally, I see plenty of reason to be concerned about letting Philomathes continue to contribute on this article, but if they could show some understanding of where they went off the rails here and commit to using the appropriate processes and engaging the breaks well short of edit warring, I believe I for one could be convinced that a sanction is not warranted here.  Afterall, while Philomathes definitely gets the lion's share of the blame here, there was edit warring in multiple directions, and as I observed above, that talk page shows some laissez-faire attitudes towards WP:ONUS.  I get that it's frustrating not to be able to call the spade for the spade all the time, but that's often the name of the game here, after-all. SnowRise let's rap 08:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , I would listen to this comment. What little I've seen of your edits, I think you are working on a good principle and one that probably would make Wikipedia better overall if more editors adopted a show rather than tell attitude towards labels.  A series of contentious labels opening an article is not good writing, its the sort of thing people often do when they are appealing to emotions in there readers.  As an encyclopedia I would hope we would never do that.  On the other hand, rarely does saying the same thing again and again fix the problem.  I know I'm guilty of the same and one of my evolutions on Wikipedia is to try recognize when I'm just repeating without persuading.  This appears to be one of those times.  I would suggest the following, understand why people are here (what did you do wrong) then ask how you should have handled this issue and agree to follow that feedback. Most editors will forgive if it's clear the problem has been understood and changes are made. Springee (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that Philmathes is being highly WP:TENDENTIOUS which, with his tendency to WP:BLUDGEON seems to be part of their modus operandi. I'd block if I were sure I'd never reverted an edit of theirs and I don't have the time to check and suspect I have. But I have no doubt that even if not here a block is in their future. Doug Weller  talk 08:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * by another administrator. Salvio giuliano 13:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is 's indef really appropriate here? A block might be reasonable but indef seems very extreme for an editor with an otherwise clean block log.  Is there more here? Springee (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just read his talk page and posts. It will take quite a while but hopefully you’ll see why. Doug Weller  talk 15:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since he immediately deletes nearly everything that's negative, read it by going through the history. While editors are allowed to delete most types of content on their talk pages, this example of extreme ownership behavior (editors do not own their talk pages) makes me think that we should place restrictions on that right. It's uncollaborative, uncollegial, and hampers the intended function of user talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a bridge too far for me. As evidenced above, I ultimately realized they had already been warned of 3RR by by going through their talk page history. A block log (such as mine) is already a "badge of shame" for truly egregious behavior. There's no need to force editors to wear warnings/notifications any longer than it takes them to read and (hopefully) understand them. Ultimately a talk page is just for communication to an editor, if they choose to engage (reply) or disengage (delete) is ultimately up to them, the page history exists regardless of those choices. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, forced archiving is excessive. Instead, repeatedly deleting complaints— and only complaints —could potentially be listed as a disruptive activity aggravating other disruptive activities (i.e. accruing more serious penalties). Dronebogus (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 to the above. I have great respect for Valjean, but as someone who likes his talk page very ephemeral, I think this is a bit of using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.  Deletiops can be an annoyance in some instances, but I don't think it's worth this extreme a solution.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Minaro123 reported by User:TrangaBellam (Result: Indefinite partial block from page and talk page)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to last good ,The  meaning and reason for its name should be added in Emdoym"
 * 2)  "Reverted for the last good, TrangaBellam had reverted just because the spelling of Endonym was misspelt"
 * 3)  "Reverted the last good, TrangaBellam please stop removing the reliable source"
 * 4)  "TrangaBellam,The next time you remove reliable sources, you will be at AE."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Aware of 3RR - Engaged in semilar behaviour, a fortnight ago.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* MINT */ R"
 * 2)   "/* EXTREMELY RUDE AND  NEGATIVE STATEMENT about these Region needs to be deleted */ Indent"
 * 3)   "/* Endonym */ Reply"

Comments:

Edit warring against multiple editors, incl. Joshua Jonathan and me. There is no engagement on the talk page beyond ludicrous claims like Wikipedia having an exhaustive list of reliable sources, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Additionally, incorporating copyright violations. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A topic ban might be in order. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a AC/DS (now, AC/CT) topic area; so, an administrator can impose an indefinite page-block or a topic-ban. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment I want to report against TrangaBellam for undiscusion edit ,removing of Reliable source, and reverting the edit done by reliable source   TrangaBellam had added a Meaning of Aryan valley and it's genetics multiple times in a small articles of Aryan valley ,The identity of Brokpa whether they are being Aryan or not are being massively discussed in a Aryan valley page instead of Talking about its Geography,and History of its kingdom, Politics of these region. I reverted for the good of these articles however TrangaBellam reverted my edit even when i have added a reliable source like BBC ,The hindu. I apologise for reverting, however i had to do it because of TrangaBellam was adding a non neutral view and added only  about the name of Aryan valley and it's meaning. I will refrain from reverting back, i am extremely sorry, however please stop TrangaBellam from doing a edit on Aryan valley to make it look racist and bad. Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

THE Aryan valley page which was created by me, Aryan valley is a geographical  region which was previously known as ' Dha hanu region ' ,Dha hanu was a independent region ruled by a Dard chief in past. The region was notable because of it being a independent region in past and has a historical importance. However, TrangaBellam had added a  multiple statement on the Aryan valley articles page on the same thing  that is : 1:The reason for the name " Aryan valley". 2: the genetic study of the people of Aryan valley. The one time mentioned of the meaning of the name and the genetic study should have been enough .But multiple mentioned of the same things doesn't look good. Though Aryan valley is a geographical Region and It had a history since it was ruled independently by a Brokpa cheif. I wanted to write about the geographical Boundary, History from reliable source, however i was always reverted by TrangaBellam. In past,I wrote in talk page multiple times and asked for Discussion to TrangaBellam ,but TrangaBellam has always ignored my talks and kept reverting. Please take a action against TrangaBellam and look in the Archieve Talk page of Aryan valley to known more detail. Following are the undiscusion edit done by TrangaBellam,though me and had a discussion before adding a content in Aryan valley, because Aryan valley is a sensative Area boundary with Gilgit Baltistan  in Pakistan.i requested TrangaBellam for a discussion  in talk page before edit on Aryan valley ,however TrangaBellam always ignored me , Please see the Archives Talk page of Aryan valley where I have asked TrangaBellam multiple times for discussion.: The reverted and removing of Reliable source done by TrangaBellam on Aryan valley are:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1134408486 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1134413122 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1134427209 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1134430918

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131340841 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131301423 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131155114 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131153683 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131146363 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131111944 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:History/Aryan_Valley&offset=20230102204537 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131155114 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131146875 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131104250 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131103974 And have a look at these talk page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aryan_Valley&oldid=1131172062 Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Talk:Aryan Valley/Archive 2 for the meaning of "undiscusion." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * from Aryan Valley and Talk:Aryan Valley per discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIP, as noted in discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Sparkle1 reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1134456088 by Tewdar (talk) you are clearly now just engaged in mind the boomerang as it hits you for edit warring"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1134453612 by Sideswipe9th (talk) go to the talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1134450433 by Asarlaí (talk)see discusion"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1134449419 by Sweet6970 (talk) lol get out this is clearly partisan and clearly duplicative, talk about this because this was wholly rejected previously"
 * 5)  "/* Opposition */ not sneaking in the revolt nonsence"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Talk:Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill

Comments:

This is a pretty clear cut 3RR violation, as Sparkle1 has now made 4 reverts in the last hour. Additionally Sparkle1 is quite clearly edit warring against consensus, as there is a rough consensus based on both the talk page discussion and the edit summaries on the article that this information should be included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think a stern telling-off might be sufficient. Hopefully that'll do the trick. They're just a bit, erm, overly enthusiastic, I think...  Tewdar   20:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately when looking at Sparkle1's talk page, there are numerous warnings and discussions with administrator's about their behaviour. The sections "Your behavior", "Fresh start", and "Fed up with this" all seem relevant to this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear-cut. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Dudedood reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked, 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

An SPA that is edit warring over this text, and with this [] is making it clear they will not stop. Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * by . —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Lollller reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: special:diff/1134902627

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) special:diff/1133830284
 * 2) special:diff/1133583609
 * 3) special:diff/1133575911
 * 4) special:diff/1133570027

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: special:diff/1132153253, special:diff/1132203664

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: special:diff/1132900297, and on their talk page at special:diff/1133581088

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: special:diff/1134904092

Comments:

This is a new user, and I don't want to be bitey, but they have completely ignored the messages I left on their talk page, both templated and personal, the talk page discussion on the article talk page, and just keep coming back every few days to revert to their preferred version. I recognise that has given them another warning, which I think is now their fourth if you include the personal message I left them, but warnings don't seem to have any effect with this person - I think that a block from the article would be useful - either they will make their case on the talk page and we can discuss it, or they will have to drop the matter. Girth Summit  (blether) 14:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I'm not sure how much of an impact a 72 hour block will have - they're pretty intermittent in their editing - but perhaps it will be successful as a shot across the bows. If they reinstate their edit again when the block expires without engaging on talk, would you be prepared to consider an indef pblock from the article? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  17:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's wait and see what happens. My view is they're disruptive across multiple articles, and if they continue after the block expires, I believe an indefinite sitewide block is more appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I'm content to wait and see. FWIW, at first I thought they were just trolling, based on username and contribs in the 'historical British monarchs' subject area. Their edits in other subject areas look reasonable though, so there's a chance they will become a productive contributor - I'll keep my fingers crossed. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Mr Ernie reported by User:Zaathras (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Mr Ernie reverts once, this is allowed.
 * 2)  Mr Ernie reverts twice. claiming "1RR exception - restoring consensus text" in the edit summary, but none WP:3RRNO's 8 criteria do not apply.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'm not sure how to show this excpt to link to the edit notice which specifies the article is under 1RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy mr Ernie calls for topic bans for others. This was also brought up by me in December

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

Comments:

Just to reiterate that this isn't a 3RR violation, but 1RR. User claimed their 2nd revert was covered under WP:3RRNO, but it clearly is not. Zaathras (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Wish to point out, Mr. Ernie was restoring the status quo of the page-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Articles are not set into stone, and discussions do not make text immutable for all-time. The user Feoffer was making a reasonable and good-faith edit to tag a section that should have better verification, and expand text further down. Even if you are correct (and really, you aren't), "restore consensus" is not a 1RR exception. Zaathras (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Always best to get a consensus for such changes on a tension-filled page. But, that's not a discussion for 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have self reverted to avoid a technical violation. Please see the discussion on the talk page for context. I believe a boomerang should be applied. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My edit, which is the consensus version, has been reinstated. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No violation based on the self-revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like we can close this then. Ernie's vexatious calls for "boomerangs" raises new problematic behavior, but that isn't for this venue. Zaathras (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:156.200.136.31 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Partially blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is not “mentioning in passing” the source i cited is a reliable source from a book specialized about jews of north africa called “The Jews of North Africa: From Dido to De Gaulle” published by {https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Press_of_America University Press of America}"
 * 1)  "This is not “mentioning in passing” the source i cited is a reliable source from a book specialized about jews of north africa called “The Jews of North Africa: From Dido to De Gaulle” published by {https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Press_of_America University Press of America}"
 * 1)  "This is not “mentioning in passing” the source i cited is a reliable source from a book specialized about jews of north africa called “The Jews of North Africa: From Dido to De Gaulle” published by {https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Press_of_America University Press of America}"
 * 1)  "This is not “mentioning in passing” the source i cited is a reliable source from a book specialized about jews of north africa called “The Jews of North Africa: From Dido to De Gaulle” published by {https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Press_of_America University Press of America}"
 * 1)  "This is not “mentioning in passing” the source i cited is a reliable source from a book specialized about jews of north africa called “The Jews of North Africa: From Dido to De Gaulle” published by {https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Press_of_America University Press of America}"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Ignoring the talk page */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Kahina."

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

Comments:

Despite spending a long time explaining to the IP what the issue is with their addition, they have deliberately ignored everything, including what I said about seeking consensus, and reverted again to force their addition. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * no, i exactly reverted you now three times now including the revert i said in the previous reply, the policy states that I shouldn’t revert anyone MORE than three times, so i am safe (diff) is the comment they left in response to this one. This proves that they are gaming the system. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

He clearly violated the WP:NPOV and call other reliable sources per WP:RS as “myths”, I didn’t violate the WP:3R policy as i did exactly three reverts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.200.136.31 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please, don't misrepresent what I said: I never called the sources a myth. I will also add that you violated WP:OR (I'm sure you know what that is). I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * you literally said: no,Both points of view are already provided, as well as who started the myth., you described the point of view stated in other reliable sources as “myth”
 * If you can't understand the difference between the two, then I really can't help you. Anyway, the way you interpret the text explains why when asked to provide sources that discuss the subject in details, you mentioned two sources that say the exact opposite of what you want to add to the article and when I pointed out this embarrassing fact to you, you unashamedly ignored it and continued to edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * what should i do when someone tell me that when the source say The Kahina, a Jewish Berber Queen, was at the center of the final episode of this conquest, actually mean that the source is saying she was not jew ?, after it we said that the talk is over and nothing more can be said so i moved on, and no I didn’t make edit warring, I didn’t violate WP:3R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.200.136.31 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Violations of the three-revert-rule are not a requirement for having edit warred. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * from editing the article directly for 2 weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:ThomasMargam reported by User:Mattdaviesfsic (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1135046009 by 10mmsocket (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1134981807 by 10mmsocket (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1134981887 by 10mmsocket (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1134983101 by 10mmsocket (talk)     Why do you keep deleting it?!?!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1134974834 by Mattdaviesfsic (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1134972457 by Mattdaviesfsic (talk)"
 * 7)  "Overhaul of the page."
 * 8)  "Updated the stock list."
 * 9)  "Updated the stock list."
 * 1)  "Updated the stock list."
 * 2)  "Updated the stock list."
 * 1)  "Updated the stock list."
 * 1)  "Updated the stock list."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Gwili Railway."
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Gwili Railway."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:2404:7A83:B1C0:7D00:87D:88BC:557A:23 reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Comments:

Editor is edit warring on multiple articles against multiple editors, in contradiction of MOS:ETHNICITY (which they've been made aware of, and acknowledged in edit summaries). Other articles the editor is warring on are Rhasidat Adeleke and Gugu Mbatha-Raw. – 2 . O . Boxing  02:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * /64 range blocked for 3 weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:249:1880:7EB0:925F:4EB4:875B:C515 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Czello please stop vandalizing wikipedia pages or i will report you"
 * 2)  "correct changes from transphobic Wikipedia editors like Czello"
 * 3)  "name fix"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note that this user has also engaged in repeated personal attacks and restoration of them after removal. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 11:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Coffeeandcrumbs reported by User:Eccekevin (Result: Full protection for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User has removed well-sourced material that had been on the page for a long time. When the first removals, began, a talk was started. While the talk was ongoing, the user continued to remove said material and revert the re-addition by myself and another user. The user is unilaterally removing material without reaching a consensus and before the discussion is over, believing that providing rationale in his revision notes is enough. I have pleaded and warned about edit warring and to wait the discussion on the talk page first, to no avail. Eccekevin (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a BLP. In each instances, I have explained the reason for removal but OP has reinserted these claims. 3RR does not apply in this case. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Explaining your opinion does not mean that 1) your claim is right nor nor 2) gives you the right to unilaterally force your changes nor 3) excuses 3RR. That's what a talk page is for. Eccekevin (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have demonstrated incredible AGF but enough is enough. I shouldn't have to work this hard to fix this page. This is such a waste of my time. I think BOOMERANG is called for. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be more precise, the OP themselves violated 3RR, making 3 reversions, 2 of which restore false and contentious material to a BLP.
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a few days after doing the same thing in the space of ~26 hrs here in an attempt to falsely claim the subject is a landlord:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3. What appears to be a team of accounts has repeatedly attempted to reinsert this false claim eventually stopped by . --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Full protection for a week. I really hate to have to do this, but after reviewing the article history at length and the talk page discussion, such as it has been, I conclude thus: So, everybody gets a week off. I would tell you to keep hashing it out on the talk page but ... I don't think anyone still thinks that alone would work. You need outside voices, like you'd get at BLPN, RSN, maybe an RFC, and in any event I also think that people not emotionally involved in the San Francisco housing market as some of the editors involved here seem to be. Chill out, and good luck. Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Many of the editors involved, including both are longtime and valued contributors to the project who could and should have done better here.
 * There has been so much reverting back and forth by people on both sides as to make it pointless to assign blame for starting edit warring.
 * And, more importantly, this has been going on for over a year in some form. It did not have to get this far. Not anywhere near it.
 * It is evident that the talk page discussion has not only failed to achieve a consensus, it can honestly be said to have achieved an anti-consensus. Everybody involved seems to hate and distrust each other even more than they did when they started out. There is a big smoldering black cinder at the center, still hot to the touch, that is what's left of whatever good faith anyone brought to the table to begin with. It was emotionally exhausting to read it.
 * After careful consideration, I do not believe 3RRNO's BLP exception completely covers these reverts. That applies to questions about the sourcing; here we are faced in some cases with a question about how we interpret sourcing (to wit, the Chron) generally accepted as reliable. Should the developers' study (or so-called developers' study, depending on your point of view here) reported on by the newspaper be given the benefit of the newspaper's presumption of reliability, or not? But I could be wrong.


 * While I fully agree with your resolution, I'd like to ask the page to be reverted to a stable version for the time being. Effectively, leaving it as is means that the user has removed entire sections of the page while adding new un-discussed material. Myself and other users have been trying to have a talk on the Talk page, but Coffeeandcrumbs has ignored us and made his changes unilaterally. I and the other user have engaged with the points made and responded point by point. To be clear, I am not emotionally involved (none of the material as added by me), I simply saw a huge deletion of content and stepped in. Secondly, the Chroncile article does not mention developers at all, that was OR by the user in the talk page. Eccekevin (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that I protected the wrong version? Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that if we're pausing, then all contentious material should be removed, while the current version preserves the contentious material added recently by Coffeeandcrumbs and exclude material they removed. Eccekevin (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of linking to that essay is that administrators cannot choose a side when they fully protect an article. We have to leave it at the last version no matter how much it leaves to be desired. If you don't want that to happen, don't edit war. So, you are saying that I protected The Wrong Version. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! For the record, I will only add that the first time I edited this page was about 7 days ago. This is what it looked like at the time.--- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on Daniel Case's comments, that's unlikely to be the status quo ante version, since he noted that the edit warring has been going on for a year, if not more! —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

User:2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 reported by User:Anaxial (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&oldid=1135129821

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=1135389838&oldid=1135352068
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=1135390318&oldid=1135390040
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135390394
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135391280
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135391656
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135392214
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135392437
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135393115
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135390040
 * 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135390394
 * 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135391280
 * 12) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135391656
 * 13) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayacucho_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1135392214

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A2A04%3AEE41%3A7%3A6028%3A9459%3AA0A3%3A1231%3A87A1&diff=1135392808&oldid=1135392597

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAyacucho_massacre&diff=1135342939&oldid=1135321806

Comments:


 * I've blocked the IP for 24 hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Jrockthing reported by User:Magitroopa (Result: Stale; no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)  - This was before the edit warring / 3RR warning on their talk page.
 * 9)  - This was after the edit warring / 3RR warning on their talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

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

Comments:

Jrockthing has been edit warring on the article restoring the current/upcoming/former programming multiple times since October, despite A) it being removed afterwards as per WP:NOTDIR, and B) not providing any sourcing whatsoever every single one of the times they've decided to restore the content. Also pinging, as several of the reverts/edit warring occurred with them back in October, and Tide rolls had previously warned Jrockthing regarding edit warring in late October, but as their edit warring has continued to now, it seems this is the only option now. Magitroopa (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, I reverted Jrockthing several times and explained why on their user talk. Receiving zero response after warning them about edit warring I decided that pushing the matter would be of no use. I'm glad they finally responded on their talk page but their IDHT posture is not reassuring.  Tide  rolls  13:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Stale and no violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Historianarm reported by User:Olympian (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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 continues to replace de jure village name with the de facto name without consensus, they do not reply to Talk when being asked to stop and provided with suggestions with respect to their editing. <b style="color:#fcc203">Ol</b><b style="color:#fcba03">ym</b><b style="color:#fcb103">pi</b><b style="color:#fca903">an</b> <b style="color:#a3a0a0">loquere</b> 07:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. This user has never posted on Talk or left an edit summary. They have made similar changes (now reverted) at wikidata. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Progrock70s reported by User:Alalch E. (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""Influenced and Inspired" what's the difference? The album is influenced and inspired by these genres so it means that these genres exist on the album. Check Queen band's debut album Wikipedia page, it's inspired and influenced by hard rock and progressive rock and users put these genres in infobox"
 * 2)  "The source LITERALLY said : "Judging from its musical content, Thin Lizzy were inspired and influenced by a variety of different styles and genres (hard rock, blues, folk, psychedelic rock, progressive rock, etc.)". "IT'S MUSICAL CONTENT" is referring to their first LP, the interviewer even said it at the end of his sentence. What's wrong with you people?"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1135602486 by Progrock70s: My edit is not disruptive. I've provided the best reliable source. the source is from an interview with the original member of the band AND the whole interview is about their first LP. Even the interviewer says "to that first LP" at the end of the sentence. It's weird and very unfair that someone like FMSky can edit the genres anyway they want but when I provide a source that is totally reliable I get labeled as disruptive editor."
 * 4)  "Unexplained removal"
 * 5)  "WP:EDITWAR & WP:GENREWAR by anonymous user from Brazil, the user changes their IP from time to time to stay anonymous and constantly makes changes to article that are seem to be WP:VANDAL. Even the ClueBot agrees with the user being a vandal. Admins please consider it"
 * 6)  "The whole interview is about band's first album. The interviewer even said "in that first LP" meaning they were talking about their first album. Your recent changes to article are cleary vandalism. Also it's obvious that you're the same Brazilian user who started in an edit war with me"
 * 7)  "The best reliable source for genres since it comes from an interview with an original member of the band."
 * 1)  "The best reliable source for genres since it comes from an interview with an original member of the band."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Frequent genre changes without consensus or sources (UV 0.1.3)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Genre-warring. Previously blocked for the same thing on Whiskey in the Jar. Disruption on that page led to full protection. —Alalch E. 20:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I was in the process of blocking and notifying as this thread began. Confirm edit warring, account blocked for 3 days. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

User:The Banner reported by User:Wappy2008 (Result: Both editors partial blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) special:diff/1134607555
 * 2) special:diff/1135218940
 * 3) special:diff/1135219043
 * 4) special:diff/1135219287

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: special:diff/1133436931, special:diff/1133554715, special:diff/1133563611

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: special:diff/1349224811, special:diff/1134656769

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: special:diff/1135235580

Comments:

I don't want to cause any harm to anybody but as on talk page explained several times user going against Wikipedia guidelines and breaking several rules. i have posted a few times the linked wiki articles that go against his edits and he ignores to accept it. Keeps coming back every other day and reverts to his edits. I know he is qualified user but the way he is implementing his opinions are inappropriate. User accused me of being racist and threatened to find a way to stop editing me on Wikipedia as per my talk page. User doesn't want to accept discussion of other users on WP:WikiProject Airports talk page regarding suspensions of the flights during unpredictable circumstances like war / Covid19, etc. which are backed up and go against WP:NOTRAVEL, WP:NOTAGUIDE, WP:NOTNEWS not to be included on the tables. I have tried i don't know how many times to explain everything on the talk page but the user keeps ignoring anything that goes against his opinion. As well it really looks like, that the user going specifically against me as he didn't revert on any other pages of similar content. Thank you for your time to look into this.Wappy2008 (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't notified correctly of this report. Please do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Interesting filing. The filer is in fact removing sourced information because he has no idea when the (suspended) flights will resuming (a personal opinion). I have tried to explain that multiple times, but he only came back with a few more shortcuts. As far as I know, removing sourced information can be seen as vandalism. Editor is doing the same at Athens International Airport. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing sourced information is not necessarily vandalism, and in this case I don't see that it is. You should not be labeling it vandalism in your edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you advise how to do it properly not to make mistake? Interesting that user called Wikipedia rules/articles as few shortcuts that just prove user didn't read none of advises given. Thank you for looking into this again Wappy2008 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Two of your three shortcuts go to the same page and say nothing about suspended flights. (WP:NOTRAVEL, WP:NOTAGUIDE) WP:NOTNEWS also does not mention suspended flight due to war or international sanctions. On the other hand, WP:WikiProject Airports gives an example that suspended flights can be mentioned. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you didn't read all the discussion on Airport project including archived ones. War is unpredictable circumstances as Covid19 for example. As several users agreed on Project page none of us know when this flights will resume and even if they ever will and there is no point to be listing something in the table if it didn't operate for over a year. Another example war in Damascus or Yemen all EU destinations has been completely removed from the tables long time ago as war is still persisting to the present and it has been for several years. nobody knows when war will end that's why it is classified as unpredictable circumstance. WP:NOTRAVEL doesn't mention the exact term of suspension it says that in general Wikipedia is not a travel guide to be including such information in the table. Hope that this makes it more understandable. Wappy2008 (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * from the article, for a week. A week because you have both been at this intermittently for a month or so. A week so you can use the talk page (not each other's user pages), which hasn't seen any edits in nine months, to hash this out, hopefully without accusing each other of vandalism and remembering to assume good faith, and sort out which of the policies you keep throwing at each other in edit summaries apply most relevantly. At least it is my fervent hope that you do this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking into it and your suggestions


 * i would like to bring to your attention talk page of @Der HON its been only few hours and without any discussion i been already called vandal and spiel. i don't think it will change anything 1 week block from the side. He is not able to accept any kind of resolution as can be seen on @Der HON talk page. instead of creating discussion on WP:WikiProject Airports or Larnaca airport page as advised he is looking for someone to look after Larnaca International Airport page. Anyhow i am going to do it the right way and try to create a new discussion WP:WikiProject Airports so other users can get involved. Sorry to bother you and thank you for your time Wappy2008 (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary I DID discuss it. I asked him why he reverted and he refused to say. I told him they he had taken nearly ALL of the work and I did WITHOUT EVER asking me before he did so. THAT is a fact. I stopped when they all started to threaten me. I have a day job as a CFO and also one as a PUBLISHED JOURNALIST. I could not care less about what I and MANY OTHERS refer to as Wiki Nazis. Period. Tal1962 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh ... I'm not sure you put this in the right report. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Michaelbig reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 19:52, 28 January 2023‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  20:05, 28 January 2023
 * 2)  20:07, 28 January 2023
 * 3)  20:08, 28 January 2023
 * 4)  20:10, 28 January 2023
 * 5)  20:14, 28 January 2023
 * 6)  20:24, 28 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: This is some pretty hot-and-heavy edit warring over the controversial topic of transracialism on a BLP. The editor in question,, appears to be the romantic partner of the article's subject (Michael Big per the article), and so clearly subject to WP:COI restrictions. My suggestion would be for an indef partial block from Martina Big. Warnings for nonconstructive edits to that page go back as far as November 2018. Generalrelative (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorsed. I feel like it is more bordering WP:CIR, given that they haven’t used the talk page, and keep insisting the “I’m right and you’re wrong” narrative. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

User:SurfingOrca2045 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Page-block for tendentious editing)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Initial edit).

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1136018492 by Roxy the dog (talk) Changes are minor; previous versions showed clear bias against cryonics, with unsupported factual statements from non-credible sources of the supposed impossibility of reanimation. As cryonicists do not believe that patients are "dead" or "corpses", cryopreserved humans should be referred to as "patients". Cryonics does not involve "freezing" in any way; only vitrification is used."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1136014601 by Bon courage (talk) Previous language uses biased and non-neutral wording and tone."
 * 3)  "/* Conceptual basis */"
 * 1)  "/* Conceptual basis */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Achieving editorial excellence through the prevention and removal of biased language */ Reply"

Comments:
 * USer has self-rv'd following discussion, so this is probably moot. Bon courage (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The reporter has conducted three reverts over the last 24 hours on cryonics, and has a significant history of reverting others' contributions on the page. However, they have ceased reverting after the page was voluntarily reverted. SurfingOrca2045 09:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Page-block. I don't think SurfingOrca2045 has violated 3RR. I have, however, page-blocked them indefinitely from Cryonics for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing. They may still edit the talkpage. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC).

User:122947vfw reported by User:Denniss (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Vistula–Oder offensive."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Meteorology and occupation */"

Comments:

Edit warior removes a cited source claiming the source can't be used because he can't access the meteorological the sources used. That's original research at best or an attempt to own the article to pure vandalism Denniss (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * User made many more reverts over past weeks. --Denniss (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

User:IagoHughes reported by User:Taking Out The Trash (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1136378529 by Taking Out The Trash (talk) Eejit43’s revert of my article based on copied information is no longer valid as I have given credit for the copied information, therefore neither of you have any legitimate basis to revert my edit other than your own personal opinions."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1136377307 by Eejit43 (talk) This edit and page contains copied content from <King of Wales>; see that page's history for attribution."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1136370885 by Eejit43 (talk) This edit and page contains copied content from <King of Wales>; see that page's history for attribution."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1136365191 by Eejit43 (talk) copied information is relevant to this article and topic."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has repeatedly reverted edits removing their additions on Kingdom of Wales (removed as they were almost complete copies from King of Wales). They have refused to listen, and continue to revert. Discussions occurred at User talk:IagoHughes. Also note this is not the first time this user has been involved in edit warring, they must understand the rules by now. ~ <b style="color: #00733f">Eejit43</b> ( talk ) 01:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have since twice given credit for the copied information that is present in the article, therefore the use of copied information in the article is completely permissible according to Wikipedia’s own guidelines, therefore his reason for reverting my edits are no longer valid. IagoHughes (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * IagoHughes, that is in no way an excuse to edit war. You are not allowed to edit war against other users regardless of copivo-violations. Jeppiz (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As explained I gave credit for the copied information and Eejit43 decided to continue to revert my edits regardless, its clear that I am not instigating it. IagoHughes (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You tried this last month and I reverted you then. Now you're edit warring with other editors about it. You know full well the issue: you're creating an entire duplicate of another existing article but with a different title to advance your particular POV. It's nothing to with "giving credit" to the original article. This isn't just edit warring, it's tendentious and disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Salvio giuliano 08:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

User:BenjaminStaff reported by User:Te og kaker (Result: Page protected for 3 days)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1136530122 by Khirurg (talk) Last Editors comments are not correct"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1136384928 by Te og kaker (talk) Don't think editors last comments are true."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136537846
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136529629
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136322012
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136320540
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136177661
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1134457730

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136537846
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136529629
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136322012
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136320540
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1136177661
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1134457730
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_Smyrna&oldid=1134447587

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Massive edit warring and POV pushing from this user as well as his IP, 70.164.212.36, has occured for almost two weeks on this article and has been massive. The user hardly has any contributions except from his edit warring/POV pushing on this article and its talk page, where he has been very aggressive in propagating his view (the only other contributions from the IP are also related to the Armenian genocide - or more specifically, his denial of it). Clearly a single-purpose user. Not sure if it should be reported as vandalism or edit warring, but the editing is clearly disruptive. Te og kaker (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

* I was not aware of this report when I protected this article for 3 days. I became aware of the situation after reading Dispute resolution noticeboard. I'll let an admin who regular patrols this noticeboard decide whether or not to take any action against any editors. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Santhanakkulu reported by User:Curb Safe Charmer (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This single purpose editor is struggling with how to behave here, with a propensity to remove maintenance tags and AfD tags.
 * No action. I have speedily deleted the article per G7, so there is no need for blocks or sanctions. Salvio giuliano 14:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Ɱ reported by User:Piledhigheranddeeper (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see comments in

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

The kernel of the discussion appears to arise from a difference as to when "citation needed" is appropriate" "I've seen. Needs to be a good-faith challenge of the material" Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I love that you'd rather be lazy and tag-bomb and then attack the editors who stop you, than to actually -contribute to the encyclopedia- and find some sources. Please read WP:MINREF and WP:V. The latter is a policy. You cited an information page, which honestly also backs up what I'm saying. ɱ (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Squatch347 reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edit conflict change.  Discussion of source is on Talk page."
 * 2)  "/* Economics */ No consensus for inclusion, again this isn't about evaluating the merits or elative demerits of any particular theory, unless we just want to cut and paste the entire economics section into this page."
 * 3)  "/* Politics */"
 * 4)  "These descriptors are unwarranted imo.  They aren't described this way on their own pages, nor in the relevant sources."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1136918195 by Andrevan (talk) I don't think that addition is warranted as relevant (part of our discussion), I definitely don't think you can just add it as a wikivoice statement without a reference."
 * 6)  "/* Economics */ Again, per WP:Primary, when a secondary source is available, it should be referenced and relied upon above a primary source document."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1136907478 by Heavy Chaos (talk) I think you might have been editting off an old version, you altered a bunch of material down page."
 * 8)  "Adding Heavy Chaos source"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1136897144 by Squatch347 (talk) Ok, read through the full article and it does contain the term twice."
 * 10)  "/* Politics */ Took a stab at elaborating the author's argument a bit."
 * 11)  "Undid revision 1136891311 by Andrevan (talk) I don't think this source says trickle-down anywhere?  Maybe I missed it?"
 * 12)  "I think this reference needs to be here since it is being primarily used to make the distinction/definition being relied on here.  I'm also removing that last summary sentence pending our consensus on the point of this article."
 * 13)  "/* Economics */ NPOV relevant.  We don't reference Stiglitz as a Liberal economist.  This label was also specifically rejected over at Thomas Sowell talk."
 * 14)  "/* Economics */ Per WP:Primary, when a secondary source exists for a primary document we use the secondary source reference and rely on the secondary source's characterization rather than editors'."
 * 15)  "/* Economics */ This is literally the same source as is referenced in the above paragraph, but a primary rather than secondary source."
 * 16)  "/* Economics */ Moving to talk page for verification."
 * 17)  "Undid revision 1136854360 by Selfstudier (talk) Please take this to talk.  We already use this source in the paragraph above."
 * 18)  "/* Economics */ This is the just the primary source referenced in the article above.  We are simply duplicating the reference here."
 * 1)  "/* Economics */ Per WP:Primary, when a secondary source exists for a primary document we use the secondary source reference and rely on the secondary source's characterization rather than editors'."
 * 2)  "/* Economics */ This is literally the same source as is referenced in the above paragraph, but a primary rather than secondary source."
 * 3)  "/* Economics */ Moving to talk page for verification."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1136854360 by Selfstudier (talk) Please take this to talk.  We already use this source in the paragraph above."
 * 5)  "/* Economics */ This is the just the primary source referenced in the article above.  We are simply duplicating the reference here."
 * 1)  "/* Economics */ This is the just the primary source referenced in the article above.  We are simply duplicating the reference here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."
 * 2)   "/* February 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removals */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Broader usage */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Removals */ Reply"
 * 4)   "/* Removals */ Reply"
 * 5)   "/* Sowell is a conservative economist */ new section"
 * 6)   "/* Removals */ Reply"
 * 7)   "/* Sowell is a conservative economist */ Reply"
 * 8)   "/* Removals */"
 * 9)   "/* Removals */"
 * 10)   "/* Sowell is a conservative economist */ Reply"
 * 11)   "/* Removals */ Reply"
 * 12)   "/* Sowell is a conservative economist */ Reply"
 * 13)   "/* Removals */ Reply"
 * 14)   "/* Removals */ Reply"
 * 15)   "/* Removals */ Reply"
 * 16)   "/* Sowell is a conservative economist */ Reply"
 * 17)   "/* Removals */ Reply"
 * 18)   "/* Removals */ Reply"

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Abdulhy reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

Already received a warning for edit warring, which they claimed that they "understand". --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Agastya17 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
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:

Continuously abuses the  field in violation of Template:Infobox film by including dialogue-only writers. I even warned him, but he continues to do so, and puts the production company in  field, when it is unlikely that the production company also distributed the same film. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  06:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User:173.230.62.23 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Range blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1137088461 by Meters (talk))}"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1137075979 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1137076982 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1137075979 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 5)  "Lol Julie. “Grammatically incorrect sentences”, please come up with a better excuse. There’s no reason to change the photo if that’s the case because you just sound like an idiot."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverting to version by another IP in the same range, 173.230.62.27. Also note that repetitive edit summary seems to be because IP is doing an undo of an old version and not the most recent revert(s) of their edits. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The final revert was after this 3RR was filed, and after the user had responded on his talk page at User talk:173.230.62.23, so there's no question that he's not aware. Meters (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , by applied to  Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User:MuammarElkhatib reported by User:Colombiaball (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 02:03, 30 January 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:36, 2 February 2023‎
 * 2) 20:13, 2 February 2023‎
 * 3) 22:07, 2 February 2023
 * 4) 22:29, 2 February 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:52, 2 February 2023

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 23:39, 2 February 2023

Comments: This user keeps arbitrarily changing the template image on the "Arepa" page, even though they know that said image is already on the page, with a more detailed caption, making more than three reverts within the 24-hour period. In their latest reversion they tried to make it about Colombia vs. "other areas", when it isn't. They also accused me of "enforcing misinformation". I warned them about their behavior on their talk page, but they replied that my warnings were useless. --Colombiaball (talk), 23:40 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * . Not only are both users edit-warring, both are incorrectly accusing the other of vandalism. Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

User:31.205.93.181 reported by User:Lightoil (Result: Blocked and protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1137214795 by Rhain (talk) Note was placed there by a standard user, not by an admin etc. See talk page to provide valid references to the company being British. Do not edit again."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1137214520 by Lightoil (talk) Edits are warranted, I will continue editing until page is reviewed by an admin. No verified references of this company being British have been provided. It is quite the opposite."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1137214288 by Rhain (talk) Your evident and toxic nationalistic views are showing. I'd advise you to read the discussion and to conduct reasearch into the nationality of this company rather than basing its origin off of your own bias."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1137213628 by Rhain (talk) Your edit is unjustified, see talk page."
 * 5)  "Editied rockstar north origin to the correct nationality

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Factually Incorrect Nationality of Rockstar North. */ Reply"

Comments:
 * This is a siteblock, given the overall nationalistic edit-warrior behavior and their conduct concerning the Talking Heads and David Byrne. I've also semi-protected the article.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Hagemaruii reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: Blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Atomism and ethics" (logged-out edit)
 * 2)  "/* Atomism and ethics */Dear user if you have any problem of it you can search in my citation on the history of atomism by ancient Chinese if you think that the theory has nothing to do with atomism then both Greek and Indian theory is also wrong see the citation carefully."
 * 3)  "/* Atomism and ethics */Please read the citation on the Chinese atomism given below and change it"
 * 4)  "/* Atomism and ethics */It is under edit"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Charge on eurocentricsm by Wikipedia editors */ cmt" (article talk)
 * 2)   "/* Verification failed */ new section" (user talk)

Comments:
 * Blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

User:86.28.234.94 reported by User:Ppt91 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1137504591 by Ppt91 (talk) you are lying. there is no typo. I stated the reasons for my edits in the edit summaries. Evidently, your desire is to be disruptive. You will stop now."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1137492176 by Ppt91 (talk you had absolutely no reason to revert my edits"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1137369205 by Materialscientist (talk) if you have a reason to revert, state it"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1137368399 by Materialscientist (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on The Sting."
 * 3)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on The Sting."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* February 2023 */ Reply"

Comments:

Even though their original intention may have been to improve the article, the user has made and reverted multiple edits which appear disruptive. They have also deleted several messages suggesting they follow style guide and a registered account from their talk page, and exhibited lack of civility when engaging with other editors. Ppt91 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing I have done was disruptive or harmful in any way. I made edits which improved this article, including replacing unreliable sources (IMDB) with reliable ones. Earlier today, I removed some badly written trivia, which was copied verbatim from IMDB. An editor who does nothing but frantically revert edits as fast as they can twice replaced that copyright violation before moving on to other articles. Now this reporting editor, most likely as a result of seeing that earlier unjustifiable revert, has decided that they, too, want to do some reverting. They have removed a reliable source that I added, and falsely claimed that there was a typo in my edit. I think it is clear that they are being intentionally disruptive. 86.28.234.94 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The "diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is a message left on my talk page. The user has not attempted to resolve any dispute because there is no dispute. They are reverting purely for the sake of reverting. 86.28.234.94 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Saintstephen000 reported by User:109.171.194.161 (Result: Both editors blocked and page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User filing report: (added by Ckatz)

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

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

Comments:

Reverted number of times on a contentious topic. The user continues to add WP:BLP violated content without reading it. 109.171.194.161 (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This IP clearly has strong feelings about the article in question, and my limited examination of the article suggests there may have been issues in the past with regard to content and contribution methods. That being said, Saintstephen000's edit history does not appear to warrant this rapid and extreme series of warnings initiated by the IP. Ckatz talk  05:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)ckatz
 * If material this complicated is alleged to be BLP-violative as poorly sourced, it should be broken down and discussed on the talk page. Reverting does nothing to address the issue. This goes double for an article in a contentious topic. I will as a result be renewing the protection on it. Daniel Case (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Jimmy rog reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours; article protection increased)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:56, 5 February 2023
 * 2) 07:24, 5 February 2023
 * 3) 07:39, 5 February 2023
 * 4) 07:43, 5 February 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Jimmy rog (There is a moratorium on discussing changing the name of the article on Allahabad until 4 April 2023, so it was more appropriate to use the user's talk page.)

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

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * He/she is doing the same thing on
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 05:40-05:57, 5 February 2023‎
 * 2) 07:36, 5 February 2023‎
 * 3) 07:52, 5 February 2023‎
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

for disruptive editing. He didn't actually make four reverts, but it doesn't matter ... ignoring that big red warning edit notice that reflects settled consensus once is problematic enough. Ignoring it four times is indicative of a serious inability to get things. Also, I will be raising the article's protection to ECP as it's in a contentious topic and despite the semi-protection in place there's still too much "reverted", "restored" and "undid" in the history. Daniel Case (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Wargolynch reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked one week; subsequently indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reset of this version for obvious safety reasons. Feel free to add new sources."
 * 2)  "Reset of this version for safety reasons. Feel free to add new sources."
 * 3)  "Reset of this version for safety reasons. Feel free to add new sources."
 * 4)  "Reset of this version for safety and sound reasons. Feel free to add new sources."
 * 5)  "Amphetamines and methylphenidate are not nootropic molecules according to Corneliu Giurgea's sound and original definition. Since the "Usage by students" section was solely focusing on these strong neurotoxic psychostimulants which are not nootropics, it was irrelevant with this page and deleted as a result. Feel free to write a new "Usage by students" section focusing on actual nootropic molecules. For the same reason, the section "Types" needs a complete workaround."
 * 6)  "More logic and simple introduction. Feel free to add citations from scientific papers (not mainstream and inaccurate websites like Forbes)."
 * 7)  "More logic and simple introduction. Feel free to add citations from scientific and medicine papers (not mainstream and inaccurate websites like Forbes)."
 * 8)  "More logic and simple introduction, better respecting of Corneliu Giurgea's sound original definition. Feel free to add citations from scientific and medicine papers (not mainstream and inaccurate websites like Forbes)."
 * 9)  "Better development of Corneliu Giurgea's definition with better safety indications. Feel free to add new sources."
 * 10)  "Amphetamines and methylphenidate are not nootropic molecules according to Corneliu Giurgea's sound and original definition. Since the "Usage by students" section was solely focusing on these strong neurotoxic psychostimulants which are not nootropics, it was irrelevant with this page and deleted as a result. Feel free to write a new "Usage by students" section focusing on actual nootropic molecules. For the same reason, the section "Types" needs a complete workaround."
 * 1)  "More logic and simple introduction. Feel free to add citations from scientific papers (not mainstream and inaccurate websites like Forbes)."
 * 2)  "More logic and simple introduction. Feel free to add citations from scientific and medicine papers (not mainstream and inaccurate websites like Forbes)."
 * 3)  "More logic and simple introduction, better respecting of Corneliu Giurgea's sound original definition. Feel free to add citations from scientific and medicine papers (not mainstream and inaccurate websites like Forbes)."
 * 4)  "Better development of Corneliu Giurgea's definition with better safety indications. Feel free to add new sources."
 * 5)  "Amphetamines and methylphenidate are not nootropic molecules according to Corneliu Giurgea's sound and original definition. Since the "Usage by students" section was solely focusing on these strong neurotoxic psychostimulants which are not nootropics, it was irrelevant with this page and deleted as a result. Feel free to write a new "Usage by students" section focusing on actual nootropic molecules. For the same reason, the section "Types" needs a complete workaround."
 * 1)  "Better development of Corneliu Giurgea's definition with better safety indications. Feel free to add new sources."
 * 2)  "Amphetamines and methylphenidate are not nootropic molecules according to Corneliu Giurgea's sound and original definition. Since the "Usage by students" section was solely focusing on these strong neurotoxic psychostimulants which are not nootropics, it was irrelevant with this page and deleted as a result. Feel free to write a new "Usage by students" section focusing on actual nootropic molecules. For the same reason, the section "Types" needs a complete workaround."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
 * Salvio giuliano 16:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was about to block the user sitewide and indefinitely, not just for violating 3RR, but we don't need a WP:SPA whose sole interest appears to be violating WP:FRINGE for "safety reasons".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No objections from me, I wanted to see if he could become a productive editor, but I'm starting to realise that I sometimes may be too lenient. Salvio giuliano 16:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll wait and see what happens when the block expires. We can also watch and see what they do on the article Talk page. I'm reluctant to make a block more severe after another administrator has acted; unless there's something new, it seems unfair to the user. Besides, your block was reasonable, just not what I would have done.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't last long. The user was disruptive on Salvio giuliano's Talk page, for which I warned the user, and then disruptive on the article Talk page. I have therefore indefinitely blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

User:139.55.215.236 reported by User:Armegon (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: IP's first time adding unsourced content on the page. Armegon (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP engages in edit warring by restoring the same disruptive edit over and over.,, , , ,. Armegon (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP was warned by two other editors but has stopped responding, and has continued to add the same unsourced edit in other articles , , , , ,. Armegon (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

IP keeps restoring unsourced content despite reversions and repeated warnings. Armegon (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

User:CC8200 reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: Indef block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Not edit warring, just reverting constant vandalism by @Blaze Wolf and @TheMysteriousShadeHeart"
 * 2)  "Do NOT revert this edit without first reading what I told you both and giving me a proper reason on the talk page. Don't try ghosting me as all you Wikipedia editors do, I'm happy to revert this page as much as I need to. And don't hit me with the stupid happy face that you do, it's annoying as anything"
 * 3)  "By all the moons, feel perfectly free to fix the grammar and the run-on, just 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯. Find a way to keep it in. Saying "there are a few exceptions" Does not do it justice at all. I looked at your edit history and you have a record of randomly reverting things with no talk beforehand. Do not do this again. If you still disagree, ping me and lets talk instead of edit warring."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Add back the information I put in Setting and Universe */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Add back the information I put in Setting and Universe */ Reply"

Comments:

User does not seem to understand what WP:CRUFT is despite my explanations and has accused me and another user of vandalism despite it very clearly not being vandalism. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I know the user has only reverted 3 times, however they have clearly stated their intentions to continue edit warring. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 18:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Blaze Wolf is vandalizing the page and continuously reverting my edits by removing information for no reason. He classifies a topic that shows itself in half the series as "Not necessary to the article". He also told me to take it up with him on the talk page instead of "Edit Warring" and when I do, he responds to my massive amount of text with one or two sentences, continuously ignoring the most important parts of what I am trying to tell him. CC8200 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This is clearly the same editor that has been creating disruption as an IP on a small selection of articles over a year. Ponyo bons mots 18:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: Blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

User edits in portal namespace:

'''Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

''To provide some context, the reversions which involved my action were related to to the events 2023 State of the Union Address and 2023 British cabinet reshuffle. Both events have their own page and were widely reported in RS's around the world.''


 * this Portal has never been the place to include simple cabinet reshufles
 * Ordinary and no news-worthy
 * Re-add US state of the union address usually included in this portal (ie. Feb 4, 2020 & Feb 5, 2019).
 * Re-add UK cabinet reshuffle. Such events are usually included in this portal (ie. Brazil Mar 29, 2021).


 * 1) The SOTU is an ordinary, regular, non-extraordinary political event that in previous years has not been included (2018, 2021, 2022). Are you going to include when the Hungarian president will address the National Assembly or the King of the UK will open the Parliament? Neither you nor I should do it. 2) Cabinet reshuffles are an ordinary, regular, not extraordinary political event and when they have occurred in other countries they have not been included. Why? Some kind of bias we don't k...
 * (1) I've provided precedent that SOU speech has previously been added (of which the years provided you have ignored), (2) the cabinet reshuffle example was of a different country (Brazil), (3) Both events have been widely reported in RS's around the world, so I believe inclusion is justified per WP:RSUW.


 * You are ignoring (on purpose, probably), in the case of the SOTUS, the years that have not been included? For what reason? You should know that precedents are not criteria that justify the inclusion of new news. This doesn’t work like the English legal system. I think you already knew that. 1) That it is contemplated in RS means absolutely nothing. Let's include any news???? You know perfectly well that this is not going to happen. 2) So you just admitted your Anglocentrisc discriminatory po...

I would like to note that upon my provision of cases where the State of the Union Address were included in previous years, Alsoriano97 went to said entries and unilaterally removed the entries, prior to replying to me.
 * Far too local political events.
 * Not the place for SOTUS and never should be

I also note that Alsoriano97 has made a number of other unilateral reversions at Portal:Current Events in the past few days. One reversion stood out to me, where Alsoriano97 removes 2 entries at once, and characterizes the entries as Local vandalism. I find the use of the word vandalism of especial concern, given this was a content dispute involving good faith edits, so such usage amounts to a personal attack.

I further note that Alsoriano97 has replied (then deleted ) to the ANEW Notice on his talk page with an accusation of incivility.

''thanks for going to the least civilian way. Thanks for being such a great Wikipedia mate!''

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:

Background:


 * Alsoriano97 has previously been blocked twice for edit warring at Portal:Current Events, once on 30 October 2022 and once on Sep 2020.


 * I did not make the initial edits in the incidents but re-added the entries after the initial reverts, and have been involved in previous issues on Portal:Current Events involving Alsoriano97.
 * Alsoriano97 has a history of edit warring, civility issues and tendentious editing on Portal:Current Events going back many years.
 * An AN/I filing was previously opened against Alsoriano97, where Alsoriano97 was warned to not further engage in the above issues.
 *  A search by an administrator returned 66 potential violations of 3RR over a 3 year period.
 * The majority of Alsoriano97’s removals relate to news on Anglophone countries, with a specific emphasis on the USA. These removals frequently relate to news that, while occurring in the US, are widely reported globally in many RS's.
 * Alsoriano97 frequently removes or makes uncivil comments for entries which do not include the country of where the event occurred.

Previous Discussions & Warnings:

Recent
 * 1) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive460
 * 2) Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105
 * 3) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive461

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

Carter00000 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * per previous issues with this editor. By itself, this is a "no violation", but after reading the lengthy AN/I from several months back (including A97's response) and given my own previous block of this editor, the situation changes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

User:M.Ashraf333 reported by User:Saqib (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */ removed Twitter trend news as its neither a part controversy nor encyclopedic, Arshad's case is still in the court and there is no story from Bajwa's side."
 * 2)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Saqib (talk): The entire section is based on daily news stories and political agenda, already discussed on too many places i.e article's talk page, user talk page, admin board and in blocked user's request. The user's contribution timeline, his sock account and attack from different IP shows disrupt and political bias editing."
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Saqib (talk): The entire section is based on daily news stories and political agenda, already discussed on too many places i.e article's talk page, user talk page, admin board and in blocked user's request. The user's contribution timeline, his sock account and attack from different IP shows disrupt and political bias editing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: listing of Nadir Ali (comedian) at WP:Articles for deletion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Avoidance of an edit-war */ msg"

Comments:

Repeatedly edit warring and no proper engagement on the talk page. Saqib (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Saqib, First of all this is not edit war as I have not reverted any user's edit right now but removed the paragraph that too with explanation. As other editors are editing this article, I also have full right and it is not called edit war. Another user who left a message on my talk page had the same issue and said that you can also add your own input and thus create an encyclopedia with consensus.
 * And @Saqib, secondly you are personally targeting me everywhere which is not a good thing at all. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Saqib, You can go ahead to report a user but before reporting anyone, make sure to look at the subject's talk page and this paragraph, then you will know why other IP users from Pakistan should add this paragraph which is a complete violation of BLP.
 * @Saqib, Your reporting me, putting my page in AFD, putting COI tags on my pages and adding this politically biased paragraph in Bajwa raises different questions on you. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As should be obvious; there isn't also, or perhaps hasn't been yet, the kind of sustained revert-warring that would also justify administrative action. I would also note that the "notification on user's talk page" is for something else entirely. That said, I am not happy to see this page back on one of these noticeboards within days of imposing indefinite ECP on it per ARBIPA. You have been talking—well, exchanging is more like it—on the talk page; you should leave the article stable and do something to bring in more voices who could help reach consensus. Otherwise, I see more CTOPS sanctions—like indefinite partial blocks—in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:REHASH. --Saqib (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested something like DR/N, 3O or even an RFC to bring more voices into the discussion and reach consensus before I have take seriously the request to fully protect the article that has already been made. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Tdadamemd19 reported by User:Danbloch (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - warning is in edit summary, followed by

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Dan Bloch (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4 reported by User:Iskandar323 (Result: Blocked 24h along with another editor)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: the editing history is a little more complicated than this, but here's the diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:33, 7 February 2023
 * 2) 18:40, 8 February 2023
 * 3) 19:18, 8 February 2023
 * 4) 19:43, 8 February 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) One of the user's own edit summaries ironically contains a warning, demonstrating the user's familiarity with the edit warring concept.
 * 2) The user has also been encouraged to revise their understanding of WP:3RR at least once in the past year.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) The user has been discussing similar or related material (same scholar, Elhaik) on the talk page since at least September.
 * 2) No effort has been made to explain the latter three reverts in this sequence on the talk page, only in edit summaries.

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

Comments:

The recent unwise spate of edit warring with a single user is set against a wider backdrop of trigger happy reverting that you can see on the history of this page. There are several open discussions on the talk page, but Triggerhippie4's penchant for reverting badly outweighs their interest in discussion, with their input largely being limited to guttural vitriol, of which this is only the most recent example. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

First, Tezak habra 2 started adding the same material over and over again, and was reverted by three other users: ;  ;. Then, he started doing it again, so I reverted it because it was clear that this addition and his behavior are not helpful. And my previous revert outside the last three ones was almost a day prior. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Another user's actions are no excuse, and while Tezak habra 2 may have engaged in a creeping edit war of sorts over multiple days, they have not crossed the bright line that is WP:3RR - which an editor of your experience should not need reminding of (though you have been). Tezak habra 2 may be in an impetuous early editing phase; you are not. By your own admission this is a longstanding dispute, starting five days ago with another user that you have failed to take to talk. You have also reverted at least two other editors in the last five days,, , myself included. This, also, you have not taken to talk, but only reacted to when it was raised by others. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * starting five days ago with another user
 * No, it was started by Tezak habra 2, as the first diff shows in my comment above.
 * You have also reverted at least two other editors in the last five days
 * By the time of my second revert, it was already discussed on the talk page, and, with this in mind, it was 2 vs 2. So I reverted to the consensus version. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the key thing there is to go straight to talk after (or, dare I even suggest, before) your first controversial revert. You would do well to read WP:ROWN and shift the tack of your editing to 'reverting only when necessary'. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * How was my revert controversial? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See the first sentence under the header 'Good reasons to revert' on WP:ROWN: "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits." That is not a bar that your reverts consistently meet. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an essay, not a guideline. And, of course, you're it yourself. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Tezak habra 2 edit warring is also sanctionable. Still, the way to deal with that is not by engaging in the same behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin comment Seems to be several errors/mistakes going around here. Most serious, it's clear both Triggerhippie4 and Tezak Habra 2 did edit war quite extensively. As for mistakes, both Iskandar323 and I myself appear to have erred in dealing with the edit warring; Iskandar323 reporting only one user (should have reported both or neither) and me doing pretty much the same yesterday by warning only one user (I should have warned both or neither). Then again, the edit warring seems to be over, no further reverts since my warning yesterday. Jeppiz (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * similarly. No, 3RR was not violated but the repeated bursts of revert-warring over the last couple of days are, as noted, also actionable. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Shamrock2020 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Undid revision 1138212260 by Maungapohatu (talk) Doesn't require referencing
 * 2) Undid revision 1138427731 by Maungapohatu (talk) On London Heathrow's Wikipedia page for example is there references where it mentions that the airport is a hub for British Airways and Virgin Atlantic? No. Same applies here. Don't remove random information that has been apart of Dublin Airport's Wikipedia page for years
 * 3) Undid revision 1138472766 by Maungapohatu (talk) Where it mentions that Dublin Airport is a hub for Aer Lingus isn't referenced either so why aren't you removing that as well? Ridiculous.
 * 4) Undid revision 1138480331 by Ponyo (talk) No thanks.

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:


 * Clear 3RR violation with apparently no intent to provide the requested source per WP:ONUS. Given Shamrock2020 only has 157 edits, there are a surprising number of warnings on their talk page.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Smitterdin reported by User:2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (Result:Duplicate report )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canon_(fiction)&diff=prev&oldid=1138613462
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canon_(fiction)&diff=prev&oldid=1138612405
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canon_(fiction)&diff=prev&oldid=1138611922
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canon_(fiction)&diff=prev&oldid=1138611366
 * 5) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canon_(fiction)&diff=prev&oldid=1138610924

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canon_(fiction)

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

Comments:

This user has been hounding the canon (fiction) page and related canon disambiguation page for 1.5 YEARS and reverting corrections of his unsupported claim whenever someone came to delete them. At first he simply posted his claim (that canon is to be decided by the fan base) without any source, later he added a source which was used elsewhere on the page. This source, however, does not support his claim, it contradicts it as it clearly defined canon as "The source material." The source then continues by saying that some people simply reject the definition "Some people have different ideas of what "canon" is", but this itself is a side note and not part of the definition, as an analogy: a side note saying "despite scientific evidence some people believe the earth is flat" is not part of the definition of the shape of the earth! The talk page has devolved in a yes-no "debate" about the sources he used on the talk page. He insists that some of the sources he used (fanlore, wikitonary and wikipedia) are reputable and acceptable sources. The reputable sources (Vox and Merriam-Webster) he does use do not support his claim that canon is decided by the fan base. Vox makes no mention of canon needing to be accepted, and Merriam-Webster doesn't even mention fans, let alone define canon as to be accepted by fans. Therefore, there is no support for the claim and thus the claim must not be added. But for 1.5 years Smitterdin has stubbornly and consistently vandalized the page by reverting every correction.

Comment by User:Smitterdin, I posted my defense in the above report, this is just dogpiling. Smitterdin (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Dealt with in the thread above.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Smitterdin reported by User:Veverve (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Also on the page Canon:
 * 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:

My defense:

1) I've made my original edit 1.5 years ago and I explained my position on the talk page, people choose to ignore it and instead undo my edits

2) Despite the claims that I'm acting against a majority consensus, there are several registered users who agree with me. Today while undoing what I believed to be vandalizing edits I received a thank you from an another, uninvolved user. This claim was made in one of the edit summaries for the article.

3) I explained my position and the necessary sources are provided in the article, ref name="cite-vox".

4) I acted believing I was undoing vandalism.

5) I'm being actively belittled and compared to flat earthers.

6) I'm being accused of edit warring for 1.5 years which is also false.

7) I've already been reported here: Requests for page protection/Archive/2023/02 ctrl+f "canon (fiction)".

Thank you in advance, regardless of your decision. Smitterdin (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * from Canon (fiction). A conviction that you're right doesn't permit you to edit-war, this is a bright-line violation. Claiming that those who disagree with you are vandals is an aggravating factor. Get consensus, and somebody else can implement it, and stop calling people who disagree vandals.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * A verdict has already been made but I do wish to clarify something, even if only to dispel a misunderstanding.
 * I never accused Smitterdin of being a flat earther. I never made the comparison with him as a person, I merely made an analogy.
 * Basically, Vox's article said "Canon:The source material. Some people disagree". I wanted to point out that the side note is not part of the definition and chose flat earth as an example "The earth is an oblate sphere. Some people disagree". Why did I chose flat earth? Because I don't know Smitterdin personally, I do not know what he believes nor what his walk in life has been, but I was very very convinced that he would agree the earth is not flat. That's why flat earth could serve as an example on which we could agree, and thus the analogy would be suited to make my point clear.
 * I never accused him of being a flat earther, but if that's how I came across then I did a terribly job conveying my intentions and for that I do apologize.
 * I hope this settles that horrible misunderstading 2A02:1810:4F0B:500:7791:C6EF:E1E4:5282 (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:94.5.189.130 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Both editors blocked Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1138564306 by Bastun (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1138489433 by Bastun (talk) It's factually Season 2, end of story. Change again and reporting. WP:Vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1138489089 by Bastun (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1138385246 by Bastun (talk) No. It's Not. Did you even bother to read the updated Future section?"
 * 5)  "updated info"
 * 1)  "updated info"

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

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

Comments:

Breach of WP:CRYSTAL was reverted, IP began edit warring over it, has ignored talk page. 3RR warning was given on Talk page (didn't really see value in using an IP's talk page but placed a 'Please see...' notice there anyway. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Another case where seeking semi-protection was the better option. I have unblocked Bastun since I was advised that I had been mistaken, and indeed I was, due to an edit summary. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Nml25 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Nml25 created the article largely without sources, now edit warring to keep unsourced material in article other editors are removing.

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:

Very sad post by User:TimothyBlue There is a long conversation regarding this article which Blue has not bothered to read.

The article is sourced. The article itself states:

The bibliography originated in the pages of Story Paper Collectors' Digest where collectors began recording and compiling the list of Blake tales that appeared in the The Union Jack and The Sexton Blake Library. A master corpus was assembled in the late 1950s and by The Sexton Blake Circle.[7] Led Len and Josie Packman expansion and revision on the master corpus was ongoing throughout the early 1960s as research brought more titles to light.[5]

The Sexton Blake Catalogue was published in 1966. The announcement in Story Paper Collectors' Digest read: "This long anticipated catalogue, prepared with loving care by members of the Sexton Blake Circle, is now awaiting you. It is a veritable encyclopaedia of Sexton Blake lore, listing all the titles, authors, and leading characters of the stories in The Union Jack and in The Sexton Blake Library from the very beginning till the present day. There is also a wealth of information on the Sexton Blake adventures which featured in other periodicals. Beautifully produced, it sums up to a magnificent job."[8]

In 1970 Josie Packman announced the a reprint of the Sexton Blake Catalogue along with a "supplement of all the new information."[9]

Due to the extreme length of the bibliography it has been divided into four eras:[10]

In addition I provided Blue with this information:

Do you think Collectors would published a catalogue that would lead other collectors astray? The validity of the Packman research is cited in The Men Behind Boys Fiction https://archive.org/details/menbehindboysfic0000loft/page/20/mode/2up?q=packman The catalogue also made the Weekend Telegraph http://www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/packman.html Another reference to the catalogue is here: http://www.collectingbooksandmagazines.com/ref.html Sexton Blake Catalogue + Supplement. L & J Packman, 91pp. Monumental guide to Blake, pvt. publication. Second edition of the catalogue was published in 1993 p 19 http://www.friardale.co.uk/Collectors%20Digest/1993-11-CollectorsDigest-v47-n563.pdf Why whould anyone go to that trouble if the catalogue was worthless and unreliable? Nml25 (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has biographies of the full canons of fictional detectives Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot and others. It is unclear why Blue offers resistance to Blake's canon. When asked to provide an explanation of how the biography differs in construction, citing and referencing from three specific wikipedia articles he declined to comment.

Here is the question again:

Here is the page for fictional detective Hercule Poirot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot_in_literature I have provided more content for each entry. Explain to me how it is different. Be specfic.

Here is the list of Star Trek novels. Explain to me how it's different. Be specfic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek_novels

Here is the list of Doc Savage novels. Explain to me how it's different. Be specfic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doc_Savage_novels Nml25 (talk) 11:36, 11 February 20
 * from the article. It took a while to review all this, but I have reached two conclusions:
 * Nml25's editing has gotten increasingly tendentious; they are sorely testing the patience and good faith of their colleagues, who must be beginning to feel that they might accomplish more by banging their head against the wall for an hour.
 * Onel1959 and the other editors who point out that simply citing the Sexton Blake Catalogue's year of publication is inadequate are correct. There is a very good reason cite book includes fields for publisher, location of publisher and (very important in an article like this) page number. It's called verifiability. I'm sure many of us were, before we started editing Wikipedia, well habituated to doing research at academic-level standards, and even before we began higher education we knew, as surely as two and two makes four, that any book cited in your research must include that information so your instructor and/or readers know or at least trust that you're not pulling it out of your ass. And so that if they think you are, it's easy to check and call you on it. I remember years ago on Usenet (and, indeed, any memory that includes "on Usenet" at this point can only be years ago ) when someone actually took the time to attempt to verify some claims in one of Serdar Argic's posts. They found that while the article with the given title was indeed published in the periodical in question on whatever date was claimed in the 1920s, the quotation from the article was "completely bogus". So Onel and the others are absolutely correct that the given information for the Catalogue is not enough to use as a citation. I concede to Nml that the lack of an ISBN may not be an issue as, according to our article, they were introduced four years after the book's publication (indeed, I've encountered that issue with many other older books that have never really been republished between when they were consigned to dusty stacks and when they were digitized). But that's not the only issue. I understand that, yes, the Packmans were probably thorough and honest in their research. However, researchers that conscientious would probably agree that their work should be cited with more than just its title and publication date. Trust, but verify. I can't imagine that it would be difficult to find a library with a copy on the shelf, and go to it and add the relevant information and page numbers from a terminal in the library without having to even check it out. Lastly, it is probably not really relevant to this dispute but there is absolutely no reason for the article to repeat that same deficient cite dozens of times. Every editor of long standing who knows how to create and use references knows how to use the short version so as to make it unnecessary to reiterate the footnote text/code ... or so I thought until today. Irrespective of any other outcome of this, this needs to be cleaned up.


 * So ... I have decided that a partial block for a week is the best way to resolve this at this point in time. There is no excuse, outside those given in 3RRNO (none of which apply here), for continuing to revert the article to your preferred version while that issue is under discussion, a discussion the reverting editor is participating in (even if, by "participation", we mean "repeating the same arguments in lengthy walls o' text in an apparent attempt to bludgeon the discussion") on the talk page, regardless of whether the editor is probably right, even if the editor stays well within 3RR. Doing so is toxic to good faith.


 * Discussion on the talk page should continue, and doubtless will. Editors there are strongly encouraged to avail themselves of other resources, such as DR/N, posts to relevant topic noticeboards, or an RFC (which really should be the last resort) to bring in other voices that can provide a more impartial perspective, that consensus be achieved before the week is up. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Marcelus reported by User:Cukrakalnis (Result: Both pblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:48, 11 February 2023
 * 2) 17:47, 11 February 2023
 * 3) 19:54, 11 February 2023
 * 4) 20:43, 11 February 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1. 'Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion' - 22:40, 16 July 2022 2. subsequent block on editing one article for two weeks - 01:21, 17 July 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Zigmas_Zinkevičius. Despite very active editing just moments prior, no response. Marcelus had previously written on User_talk:Cukrakalnis, WP:THREATENing me that I will revert any change that will touch this topic.

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

Comments:

Marcelus has dehumanized the person about whom the article is about, i.e. Zigmas Zinkevičius, several times (detailed in this report), without ever apologizing or standing down. Perhaps a longer ban of Marcelus from this article would be wise.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Cukrakalnis that's just ridiculous. You posted Talk:Zigmas_Zinkevičius on 21:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC), then you made this report on 21:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC), and you are accusing me of Despite very active editing just moments prior, no response, seriously what's your problem? You really want so much to see me banned, that you are making things like that. Just wow, really. I was literally writing you a reponse when I get a notficiation. It's funny because you posted a notification on my talk page on 21:39, 11 February 2023, so 6 minutes before you actually made a report. Marcelus (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeatedly asked you as many times as possible to revert your own 4th revert:
 * 1. Revert yourself to show good will or this will be taken to WP:AN/3 on 20:57, 11 February 2023.
 * 2. Marcelus, please revert your 4th revert. on 21:19, 11 February 2023.
 * It takes time to create these reports, and as a prerequisite to submitting it, I had to provide Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page, which is why I posted it on your talk page earlier when I was just about to post the report. I did not see any of your editing since 20:59, 11 February 2023 and I only saw your edit of 21:45 after posting this report. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Both editors pblocked for one month from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well ok, I understand it. But just to have a full picture take a look at Talk:Zigmas_Zinkevičius, I explain there why @Cukrakalnis edits were distruptive. He even admits that by "honest mistake" he misqouted the source. In general it was attempt to remove Weeks (and Jundo-Kaliszewska) name from "Criticism" section and move it higher to "Reception and Legacy", just to water it down and make an impression that Zinkevičius criticism is minimal and coming from only one researcher. I admit I should have acted with more cool, but it's another in a series of attempts to remove this parts from the article Marcelus (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What Marcelus is saying is a very slanted version of what happened. There was no clear criticism by Jundo-Kaliszewska in that section, just a mention that Zinkevičius ws allegedly behind some theory, which is nowhere to be found by that name in Zinkevičius' work.
 * Initially, Marcelus indiscriminately removed all of my edits here. Then, when I reverted him, Marcelus re-added the paragraph about Weeks, despite me having moved the previous one, after minor changes, just a little higher in the article. This is just another sign that Marcelus doesn't pay attention to the articles he edits. By the third time, Marcelus just re-doubles with insufficiently clear explanation. The fourth time is the same. Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you folk want to discuss the content dispute, do so on the article Talk page, not here, and I suggest both of you drop the attacks against the other as that is counterproductive and sanctionable if it gets bad enough. I will also remind you that there are other methods of dispute resolution if you can't come to an agreement between yourselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Gurther reported by User:Jingiby (Result: blocked for 3 days)
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)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user is clearly not here with a constructive mission. His edits are one-sided and destructive with a nationalist bias and he does not want any neutrality of the articles in the creation of which he participates. Jingiby (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You're edits jingby arent well sourced and take very weak and blatant interviews as a source, which isnt reliable, please if your gonna report someone, atleast dont lie to the authorities, thank you Gurther (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * especially considering the self-declaration by the person in his own book http://macedonian.atspace.com/knigi/am_spmni.htm Gurther (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * , you are arguing that your edits were justified, not that you weren't edit-warring. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. JBW (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Springfield 4ever reported by User:GizzyCatBella (Result: Partial-blocked from this article; subsequently blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1139120130 by GizzyCatBella (talk) ignore all rules when improving Wikipedia"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1139117845 by GizzyCatBella (talk) please stop gaming the system using general sanctions"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1139117134 by GizzyCatBella (talk) if you want to remove sourced content please use actual arguments about the content, not the user who added it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1139115465 by GizzyCatBella (talk) unexplained removal of sourced content, this happened in Ukraine so gs do not apply here"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

First note --> Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring. Reffer to WP:APL50030.
 * Not extended confirmed account is edit warring on the restricted page. The latest edit summary while reverting - "ignore all rules when improving Wikipedia". User has been warned but their latest remark (Maybe stop removing sourced content, and I will stop bringing it back?) indicate that they have no intention to cease reverting. GizzyCatBella  🍁  13:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you will really consider to stop removing sourced encyclopedic content from Wikipedia articles? -Springfield 4ever (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is because I am in fact improving Wikipedia. If someone else wants to add this content, I will stop editing the page. -Springfield 4ever (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Your first revert of stated in the edit summary: Removed - added by not extended confirmed account - restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Can you cite where this restriction is imposed? It is not noted on the article's talk page. If an article is truly restricted from edits by a user without extended-confirmed privileges, shouldn't that editor be actually unable to edit the page? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @WikiDan61 Some articles has not beed protected but restriction applies to all pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed, please refer to this - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Partial blocked from this article only. Yes, the ECP restriction should be linked better on the talk page (it's in the top link), but this is blatant edit-warring on an article they shouldn't be editing. Black Kite (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit that violated WP:3RR and should be blocked (at least temporarily) for that, but the information at the Arbitration Case page is scant indeed. There is a heading labeled "Extended confirmed restriction", but that section is empty. I'm a 15-year veteran at Wikipedia and would not have read that section to assume that only extended-confirmed users were allowed to edit. I would only make that assumption if the section actually contained some text. Perhaps, in the future, it might be better to explain to a new editor why you first reverted their edit rather than relying on them to understand esoteric Wiki-speak given in edit summaries. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting that I have just indeffed Springfield 4ever as a sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

User:അണ്ടിപറപ്പ് reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Casting */Jyothika to Nithya"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1138920634 by Kailash29792 (talk) interview"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1139090710 by JBW (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1139090710 by JBW (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Always adding unsourced information, and is refusing to co-operate. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  13:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * What is your problem uncle?? 🙄 i have texted you on your talk page and you haven't replied me there... Now reporting me directly here. What is your actual problem uncle🙄🙄??? I didn't get you uncle... Can you atleast explain here uncle??? 🙄 അണ്ടിപറപ്പ് (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Brown Burnsee reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There, much better. 😘"
 * 2)  "LOL XD"
 * 3)  "LOL. He is from Hazbin Hotel. XD"
 * 4)  "A character from Hazbin Hotel. ;)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple attempts to try to hijack (?) Lucifer to make it about the Hazbin Hotel character. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 04:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * by as a disruption-only account. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel reported by User:Sutyarashi (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) This user has been edit warring and reverting on the page for months like reverting edits by @Smallchief
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

All while making reference to a consensus  which never really took place; and that discussion was about somewhat different topic.

It's not only that the user is edit warring on this particular page; he's also violated the 3R rule on the page Language isolate by making three reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  on the same day.

User:Aman.kumar.goel also started revenge edit warring on the page Indo-Aryan peoples on some what clumsy grounds
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user has been blocked at least once for edit warring, and seems like that he has indulged on his past habit again.Sutyarashi (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also note that your link above does not include the log entry showing that he was unblocked five hours later after a discussion. And that that was three years ago. Lastly, what are you getting at with this "at least once"? If there's something you're insinuating, take it to SPI. You are also exaggerating when you say he has been making this revert "for months" when it appears really that it's been twice in the last two weeks. Getting to the matter at hand, while I can see that talk page discussion is difficult, you need to bring other voices into the discussion through DR/N or some other method. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Sutyarashi reported by User:Aman.kumar.goel (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Added the problematic edit in question in 11 February 2023 with a misleading edit summary. (Comment: not a reversion-Sutyarashi (talk))
 * 2)  "Removal ;Cited source doesn't call ancient India as cradle of civilization" (comment: again, not a reversion-Sutyarashi (talk))
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1139090595 by Capitals00 (talk) I have already provided reference. Also, the archived discussion does not contains any "consensus" upon its use. Please read WP:3RR before again reverting"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1139068811 by Capitals00 (talk) please elaborate how's that disruption"

Seems a habitual edit warrior since he also made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours on 11 February on Babur:-


 * 14:25, 11 February 2023 (comment: not a reversion-Sutyarashi (talk))
 * 16:53, 11 February 2023‎
 * 17:12, 11 February 2023‎ Sutyarashi


 * And warning another guy on edit summary not to violate "3RR".

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Indus valley */" (comment:I first attempted to resolve it; and user didn't really respond.Sutyarashi (talk))

Comments:

Edit warred with his later blocked sockpuppet 1 year ago on this same article.

Already introduced to long-standing consensus at Talk:Cradle_of_civilization/Archive_2 but he keeps edit warring and showcase WP:IDHT. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * that is not a revert but removal of a source that apparently does not corresponds to the claim, because I always adhere to WP:3RR. Also; your so called consensus isn't really a consensus; neither it was about this particular issue.Sutyarashi (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already debunked this misleading justification by you that the consensus does not need to be "specific" to your choice of the word but your opposition to the word "India". The consensus was all about it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Defence:

''; Actually I was the first to attempt solving the issue , and the user didn't really answered what I asked.Sutyarashi (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you made this as a revert 14:25, 11 February 2023; I have never once reverted 3 times. Also, that wasn't debunking; you asked an irrelevant rhetorical question in it. Your first and second evidences aren't about edit warring at all; neither on the other page.Sutyarashi (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems a habitual edit warrior since he also made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours on 11 February on Babur:- sorry, but when did it occur? Which was the third revert? Sutyarashi (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So these are the accusations upon me: Added the problematic edit in question in 11 February 2023 no, that wasn't any problematic. I provide a reference too (3 actually now), and that doesn't constitute a revert!
 * "Removal ;Cited source doesn't call ancient India as cradle of civilization", again, not a revert, rather removal of a source which doesn't corroborates with the claim.
 * Seems a habitual edit warrior since he also made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours on 11 February on Babur, again, didn't happen. I never violated 3R rule. I provided a reference, and other user agreed with it. That's a false accusation.
 * Already introduced to long-standing consensus at Talk:Cradle_of_civilization/Archive_2 but he keeps edit warring and showcase WP:IDHT. There wasn't any consensus, and you've been POV Pushing without any reference.
 * I have already debunked sorry, that wasn't debunking but a rhetorical question.
 * ''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
 * See the last paragraph of my close on Sutyarashi's report below. You really need to bring in other voices. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)