Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive465

User:Camra55 reported by User:Meters (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) February 11 2023
 * 2) January 25 2023
 * 3) January 6 2023
 * 4) November 22 2022
 * 5) November 4 2022
 * 6) September 6 2022
 * 7) February 4 2022
 * 1) September 6 2022
 * 2) February 4 2022

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Dalziel High School."
 * 2)   "/* February 2023 */ expand, mistakenly thanked wrong editor"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Title of the head of school"

Comments:

Slow moving edit war. User has attempted at least 9 times to change the title of the head of school from the sourced "Head teacher" to "Rector". After being given an edit warring warning and being informed of the talk page discussion the user restored the edit again and immediately blanked his talk page content. Meters (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That was quick.. I edit conflicted when attempting to add something about possible COI. Meters (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

User:1.145.52.212 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "That may be the case, but they were still born in Germany and raised in USA, making them both German-Americans."
 * 1)  "That may be the case, but they were still born in Germany and raised in USA, making them both German-Americans."
 * 1)  "That may be the case, but they were still born in Germany and raised in USA, making them both German-Americans."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  04:15, 15 February 2023 on User talk:1.145.52.212

Comments:
 * – for 31 hours by . Favonian (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Adamara149 reported by User:Merbabu (Result: Blocked from article space, 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user is also a suspected sock of blocked users. They are clearly proficient in wikipedia. They quikcly hit 4 reverts reverting 3 other users. Where's the point in trying to use talk page?

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

Comments:


 * 's last revert to the article was before the 3RR warning was given, much less this report. Nonetheless, the situation should be monitored. —C.Fred (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Another user has filed a check user request. Seems a good chance we are dealing with a sock of a blocked user with a long history of edit warring. In which case they know full well what they are doing. Sockpuppet investigations/Bayu Fuller --Merbabu (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record --Merbabu (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * from article space. If there's a sock situation, that will obviously override this p-block; I'm addressing the immediate behaviour concern. —C.Fred (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

User:DreamyDude20042 reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "see talk page"
 * 2)  "added more sources showing examples of "news outlet publications", all with archives"
 * 3)  "changed the opening line to ""The Worldwide Privacy Tour", unhyphented on South Park's social media pages, or "The World-Wide Privacy Tour", hyphenated on Comedy Central's official site", hopefully this fixes the naming war!"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: There seems to be a few unregistered editors trying to add an alternate title with a hyphen because it shows up in one tv guide listing, whereas all other reliable sources from the show do not have a hyphen. Maybe a temporary page protection might be a better alternative on this?
 * When the reporter themselves suggest that maybe there are better options, they're probably right. In any event, for now, 's interventions seem to have brought a halt to the edit warring. (And BTW, the reported user has opened discussion on the talk page) Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

User:2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: /64 range blocked one year)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I don't normally make 3RRN filings about IP addresses, but this instance is just egregious. The IP insisted on re-adding the material three more times (against WP:BLPRESTORE) just in the time it took me to compose this filing! Newimpartial (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * /64 range blocked one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

User:七战功成 reported by User:GreenCows (Result: Blocked 72 hours; subsequently converted to a one-week partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: They have made 5 reverts on the Korean War page. The fifth revert was to again change the Chinese casualty figures while the discussion was ongoing. They justified this edit by stating: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1139743698 You guys didn't have response before I made that edit. Several hours have passed since then. I could only assume that you had agreed with my change.] The last comments by the three other involved editors were only two hours before their fifth revert and it was clear there was no consensus or agreement for their changes. I even asked them to self revert twice, and another editor warned them on their talk page about edit warring but that warning was promptly deleted. GreenCows (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C6:7C25:C701:9932:6D06:F47F:C157 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added the name of the country - UK - where Murray was born."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The /64 range has been edit warring on David TC Davies to the extent that it had to be protected; they've now moved the disruption across to Andy Murray, same sort of editing (UK versus constituent countries stuff). It's not really possible to have a discussion with them on their talk, since they are hopping about within that range, and they don't seem to know what article talk pages are. Girth Summit  (blether) 09:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , the entire /64 range. Next time you report a range, remember to put the range in the header as I would have thought there was only one edit at issue. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, noted. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Kavitha Marupudi reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1138943720 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1138943533 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1138943533 by Kailash29792 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Their edits are completely disruptive and they are showing systemic bias. Kailash29792 (talk)  16:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

User:PeeJay reported by User:Fred Zepelin (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "provided a better source"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1139971255 by Fred Zepelin (talk) the numbers are accurate, I've provided a source and you can't substantiate your claim that this is not a reliable source"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1139957074 by Fred Zepelin (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1139616349 by Fred Zepelin (talk) how is it exaggeration?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Cowboys–Vikings rivalry."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cowboys–Vikings rivalry."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Playoff meetings */"
 * 2)   "/* Playoff meetings */"

Comments:

For good measure, PeeJay threw in a personal attack at this diff, telling me to "use my big boy words". I've been attempting to get the discussion resolved without the edit war but he has now reverted 4 times. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment – This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm doing my best to provide adequate sources for the claims in the article. Clearly Freddie hasn't looked at the content of my edits and has just taken offence at the words "Undid revision by Fred Zepelin". Whatever happened to WP:AGF? – PeeJay 22:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No violation The last "revert" isn't one, and regardless there's only one editor here that's trying to include sources. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Alkse2 reported by User:Smeagol 17 (Result: Article protected under GS/RUSUKR)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: -start of this wave of reverts; - Alkse2 contribution

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: - attempt of a user to reason with Alkse2 on the article talk page;  - my attempt of communication on my page

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

Comments:

Smeagol 17 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Result: – Article placed under indefinite WP:ECP under WP:GS/RUSUKR. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

User:LightProof1995 reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Adding important information on the Picts per the Talk Page. This is not WP:VANDALISM. I've explained it in great detail on the Talk Page. I'm not trying to "defeat" anyone, I just feel the article is missing critical information, specifically the comments of Caesar, Pliny, and Claudian. It's all referenced; it's all related to the Picts. I agree I should've used my sandbox, I've apologized, I did not know as I'd never used it before. It didn't occur to me. Feel free to keep reverting this."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1140105528 by Ceoil (talk) On the Talk Page, I have consistently spoken about the content. You are focused on a personal issue with me being bold on this page, when I've already apologized I didn't realize it was a "sandbox" edit, as I've never had to use my sandbox before."
 * 3)  "/* Definitions and etymology */ Added to etymology section per the Talk page. Picts are Celtic "People of Britain.""
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1140102506 by Ceoil (talk) Hello, I'm reverting this edit per the Talk page. There is consensus they had tattoos. The source is reliable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Picts."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:    

Comments:

Resumption of warring of a week ago, to insert again material of disputed pertinence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, the third "revert" here is not a revert at all, but original material I created a week ago that I added back in. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, you are still edit warring and I am about to impose a partial block. Salvio giuliano 16:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What?? Did you see the Talk Page??? LightProof1995 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but, again, it doesn't matter. When you are in the middle of an editing dispute, the correct thing to do is to follow WP:DR, not to continue reverting. Salvio giuliano 16:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, they only gave the optional WP:BRD, WP:DR was never mentioned. As the senior editor, shouldn't they have been the one to suggest that instead of downright blocking me from editing? I've never used Dispute Resolution before, but obviously I would've preferred it to this, and even suggested it on my Talk Page before Mutt decided to post this here. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You can still do that. I explicitly chose to only impose a partial block to allow you to discuss the issue and come to a consensus, because you seem to be genuinely wishing to improve Wikipedia, albeit in a somewhat vigorous manner. I encourage you to follow WP:DR and incidentally, if you want to have the block removed, you just have to convince the reviewing admin that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Since blocks are preventative and not punitive, that's all you need to do to be unblocked. Salvio giuliano 17:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful reply :) I looked at the Dispute Resolution options and I'm fine with any of them including WP:Third opinion, WP:DRN, and making a RfC|lang|soc tag on the Talk page for it. But only after 2 weeks. LightProof1995 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Salvio giuliano 16:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You sure you don't mean two sennights?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I love it, thanks! I have found the perfect duration for the next block I impose.  Salvio giuliano 17:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

User:80.111.106.248 reported by User:Throast (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: rev

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: WP:ONUS, IP seeks to include disputed information.

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

Comments:

Repeated additions of WP:OR to the plot and cast sections. Multiple warnings on the IP's talk page regarding unsourced material and OR were left unanswered. The same editing pattern extends to other articles, see other examples of OR here or here. Throast  { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 23:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Restflux reported by User:Knilrats (Result: Blocked from article for a week Unblocked after two days; reporter indeffed as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1139431410

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: Talk:2023_Chinese_balloon_incident

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

Comments:

In addition to non-constructive reverts, there is a pattern of strong anti-China bias in the edits that may violate WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE. Article could generally use attention and review as Restflux has dominated this page. Knilrats (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * from the article. Didn't violate 3RR, but seeing that as noted the user has edited nothing but this page, the talk page and their own user page in the two weeks since they created the account, they could use an enforced break from at least the first to maybe explore some other aspect of Wikipedia. Unblocked after two days due to reporter's exposure as a sock. Daniel Case (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * as a sock. Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you reconsider this block? You didn't give me a chance to respond and I do not believe that this report was filed in good faith, particularly as user Knilrats has been reverting the article in an even more tendentious manner. They have been repeatedly restoring material which they wrote and got reverted but for which they have not gotten the consensus on the talk page to do so. Indeed, they have now used your block to repeat their pattern of disruptive editing by unilaterally restoring their disputed changes. . If you cannot reverse this block, then can you please revert the article to the state it was in before Knilrats initiated their series of tendentious edits? (See this edit for more details) Restflux (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, these edits two edits,  seem to show that Knilrats and Kuipernet are not just controlled by the same user, but that the user is using both accounts in a sock puppet (or otherwise illicit) capacity - the accounts did not just revert my edits, but they reverted different parts of my edits.  I am unsure of what Wikipedia's policy is when it comes to situations like this, but I can't imagine that this is something that would be allowed. Your input on this issue would be of great help. Restflux (talk) 07:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Can you reconsider this block? You didn't give me a chance to respond" Unlike AN/I, typically reports here are filed with this as an understanding, since often the case is pretty clearcut. In any case I looked over the article history and saw that you were the one most recently reverting edits while the matter was under discussion. Your rhetoric, generally, also does not lead one to think you are really open to considering other points of view.
 * "then can you please revert the article to the state it was in before Knilrats initiated their series of tendentious edits" See here. You are still free to complain about this on the talk page and persuade other editors to adopt your changes, or, in other words, to get consensus for one version or the other.
 * "Also, these edits two edits [49], [50] seem to show that Knilrats and Kuipernet are not just controlled by the same user, but that the user is using both accounts in a sock puppet (or otherwise illicit) capacity" In that case you are free to take your suspicions to SPI, the proper forum to investigate them. Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was reverting because Knilrats was repeatedly restoring material (which they wrote) while we were discussing it on the talk page. As I understand it, this is something I am allowed to do per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle as Knilrats was the user who wrote the material. But even so, I was not reverting to my preferred version of the article, but rather the status quo version which contained a lot of material which I disagreed with (and which I was in also in the process of discussing with Knilrats on the talk page). It was my idea of compromise and if that's not proof that I'm open to considering other points of view, then I don't know what is. I'll commit to doubling down on my efforts to find consensus for my changes on this (and in the future any other) article. But in the meantime, is there any way that you can reconsider this block? Restflux (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am unsure if you received my latest message to you, but if you haven't then I ask with respect if you can reconsider this block. Restflux (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * user:Knilrats and user:Kuipernet (and other users) confirmed to be socks of user:Mrtnmcc via CU. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mrtnmcc  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have thus unblocked . Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 reported by User:Shibbolethink (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1140452794 by Zaathras (talk) The Journal of Adolescent Health and the 8 doctors who wrote that article (2 from the Gender Development Program at the Children's National Hospital) are Trolls? Is this how you deal with inconvenient facts - speaks volumes about yourself - please push it up the chain."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1140450825 by LilianaUwU (talk) Hi. I have cited the recent findings from a medical journal written by the practitioners of the Children Hospital cited in the article. What's the problem?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1140450029 by Shibbolethink (talk) Interesting - you claim to be a medical student and you don't see the relevance here! I am new to Wikipedia - how to I pass this up the chain?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1140447695 by Zaathras (talk) You really shouldn't delete a Medical Journal article from one of the doctors cited in the Article. If you have an ideological agenda - just state it - do not delete facts relevant to the article!"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Gender Affirming Surgery */ edit reply to 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A0A0:92C1:A9DB:9C63 (CD)"

Comments:

User has had WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOTTRUTH explained to them several times. They continue to insert their personal commentary about the term "transgender" into the talk page, now trolling about whether or not Wikipedia is trustworthy. They are making personal references to other users, and are an excellent example of WP:IDHT and WP:DFTT. Requesting pBlock for this talk page. Thanks. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 03:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Anon is now making veiled threats on user talk about this issue: 28:36, 19 February 2023: (section "Children and Abuse") Entertaining the fantasy (often induced by parents and/or situational upbringing) of the ~90% of children that are directed to gender transitioning programs and who transpire to be not transgender is abuse. This is very clear now in the Science and Medical Professional are becoming alarmed at the pandemic rates this is occurring. You are going to find yourself on the wrong side of this equation. I suggest you stop using children to affirm a preconceived state of rightness in your own mind. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 04:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is also not the first time this /64 range has had issues with WP:NOTFORUM and WP:IDHT. See this discussion from 16 February. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 04:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Crova6 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: The reported user is a WP:SPA who has been taking a redirect to the school's school district and transforming it into an article about the school. Unfortunately, the article they create is a total mess and its only source is to the school district, which proves only that the school exists, but not the rest of what's in the article. Several editors besides me have reverted the user, but they persist. The user goes to the school, meaning they are fairly young, which would explain a lot.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I have tried explaining to you many times that the page has everything a wiki article means, instead of just reverting my hard work, why cant you just add to it? Thanks. Crova6 (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to this, I am not a Single-Purpose Account, I have knowledge in art, music, and history as well. I am a new account and don't have many articles edited though, so before you assume that, maybe check what I said on my talk page "Hello, I am Crova, I am new to Wikipedia". Ive only edited 2 articles other than furnace brook, you can see it if you check my edit history, although both are on simple english. Crova6 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In conclusion, I think that you're the one doing the edit war, you have reverted my work many times and just had it linked to the Marshfield page, you break all the rules of newcomers and do not take time to understand anything, going to the point of flat out ignoring me when I reply to your messages on my talk page. Crova6 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Even on the WP:SPA page it says " A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a "single purpose". More important than the number is the content of those edits. Labeling a new account as an SPA after very few edits may be construed as biting the newcomers." Crova6 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have full protected the redirect per consensus and found this thread when I went to leave a note for the user. @Crova6 please take a moment to learn more about Wikipedia policities before arguing with established editors and norms. Star   Mississippi  01:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What page, this one? Because I can still write here. Crova6 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The redirect you kept editing against consensus. @ToBeFree thanks for clean up. Not super familiar with this board's format.  Star   Mississippi  15:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for protecting the page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:YanisBourgeois reported by User:Wolfdog (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:

Please see the recent edit history of the page Mid-Atlantic accent, specifically my edit summaries from 21:39, February 17, 2023 to the present time, where my reverts and call for the editor to take further problems to the talk page has been repeatedly ignored, even with my warning of the threat of editwarring. The user has not continued discussion on the talk page with me since 9 February. Wolfdog (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Insufficiently warned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the next steps I can take to edit the page? Do I wait for the user to engage me in conversation before editing? Do I just let the page be? What if they continue to edit while ignoring me? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, the best essay I've ever read, and perhaps the only non-policy non-guideline page I'd link to as advice, happens to be about this topic. It's called Responding to a failure to discuss and really contains all necessary advice for such situations. The relevant policy behind this can be found at WP:DR. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:67.224.128.237 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:5.143.55.149 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1140561038 by Czello (talk)"
 * 2)  "We not allow spamming, simple is that. Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin yet it has a different wikipedia page, this page of ZeroNet will not be spammed by trolls who claim to be "official forks" and "secure forks". We preserve the ZeroNet article how it was for years. Protection requested for the highest level."
 * 3)  "Requested the highest level of protection, trolling and spamming this article continuously is not appropriate or allowed by WikiPedia policies, see the protection request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#ZeroNet"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1137012047 by 2406:2D40:4002:FC10:A9E3:6458:25B1:7292 (talk)"
 * 5) 5th revert
 * 6) 6th revert
 * 7) 7th revert

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

Comments:


 * Aside from edit warring, the IP has taken to making disruptive personal attacks — Czello 22:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And now another — Czello 22:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Another delightful comment — Czello 22:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Soo personal.... 5.143.55.149 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I requested to protect the page multiple times, it is actually protected but is not enough because some auto-confirmed ones doing the same spamming. 5.143.55.149 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

User:198.84.203.79 reported by User:HLGallon (Result: Partial block from article 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:

Anon IP User is a single purpose account, who has repeatedly reverted to a preferred version of the result, has ignored the relevant guidelines at Template:Infobox_military_conflict and refused to participate in any discussion. HLGallon (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * from article. Normally this doesn't get over the threshold. But when an editor has only edited that one article and refuses to discuss, taking their ability to edit that article away can get their attention. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Kiwi Jaden reported by User:Plebby (Result: No violation)
Page:

User:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Survivor:_Heroes_V_Villains&oldid=1140501932
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Survivor:_Heroes_V_Villains&oldid=1140501859
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Survivor:_Heroes_V_Villains&oldid=1140502608
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

AGE OF CONTESTANT - ROGUE RUBIN IS 32 PROOF - ONLY TIME LISTED - HER AGE IS WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY IN MULTIPLE NEW SOURCES - IT SHOULD OTHERWISE REMAIN AS UNCERTAIN - - https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/1648606/Lion-Spy-the-hunt-for-justice-documentary-wild-lions-Rogue-Rubin HER OCCUPATION IS A FILM - MAKER - THE SHOW STATES WHEN WATCHING SHE IS A FILM MAKER!

Charlie Parsons - THE AGE OF THE CONTESTANT IS WRONG. It should be left blank - as it appears many different places but KIWI JADEN - has made it a thing. Many people have started to reach out on the behalf of the person and KIWI JADEN refuses to listen - also slandering other journalists. Please LEAVE Rogue Rubin's age at 32 - it is only listed ever as 32 in the Express paper - the rest of the time it is guessed at - https://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/1648606/Lion-Spy-the-hunt-for-justice-documentary-wild-lions-Rogue-Rubin. I am not sure why this person is so intent on slandering someone???? I also apologize as I have never tried to use wikipedia before to help contribute so i hope I have done it correctly. Also, just look at Kiwi Jaden's past - always trying to fight with people over things - simply in the hopes they are right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plebby (talk • contribs)


 * The diffs provided above are part of a single revert to the article. Since this is a content dispute, the first stop is the article talk page; it should not be immediately escalated to WP:ANEW. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For anybody else who looks at this case, be advised that Plebby has a conflict of interest with the article in question and appears to be subject to the restrictions for paid editors. —C.Fred (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

User:82.110.147.29 reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result:Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Neutral content only. No edit warring."
 * 2)  "Stop edit warring and follow the rules. Neutral content only."
 * 3)  "Yes here we go again the first line of YOUR rule page literally says NEUTRAL CONTENT ONLY. Go and learn the rules."
 * 4)  "What does the first line of Wikipedias neutral point of view policy state? ALL CONTENT MUST BE WRITTEN FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Here it is as a reminder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is ban evasion. This person has done this before on this page as an IP and as a banned account. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I was filing my own report at the same time. See the below with additional links to the 3RR warning and AN/EW notice. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the editor has now assumed an IPv6 range: 2A00:23EE:1470:E045:F15A:1A40:FEC6:8A13 to make further attempts, so please include 2A00:23EE:1470:E045::/64 in this report. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I've merged my report on this matter to the above one so as to avoid the redundancy, mainly retaining some additional diffs. Pre-war version: here. Revert list: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, more came in after the fact. 3RR warning: here. Diff of ANEW notice here. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * and some blocked handed out. Ponyo bons mots 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Zon777 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: User blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Saba was older than 1000 BC, and European missions indicate that it was very old, some sources
 * 1)  "Saba was older than 1000 BC, and European missions indicate that it was very old, some sources

(1) Reports of the German Archaeological Institute + Al-Watan Magazine - New Discoveries - Dr. Youssef Mohamed Abdel Issue 5 / year 11 / June 1988 AD. (2) History of the ancient kingdoms in the south of the Arabian Peninsula - Klaus Scheibmann - p. 66 - translation center Studies - 2001 AD. (3) Report of the activities of the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin - Al-Thawra Newspaper - Sana'a..."
 * 1)  "Saba was older than 1000 BC, and European missions indicate that it was very old, some sources

(1) Reports of the German Archaeological Institute + Al-Watan Magazine - New Discoveries - Dr. Youssef Mohamed Abdel Issue 5 / year 11 / June 1988 AD. (2) History of the ancient kingdoms in the south of the Arabian Peninsula - Klaus Scheibmann - p. 66 - translation center Studies - 2001 AD. (3) Report of the activities of the German Archaeological Institute in Berlin - Al-Thawra Newspaper - Sana'a..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sheba."
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sheba."
 * 3)   "/* We need peer reviewed papers or academic books */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note the account started editing with an IP address and that edit was also reverted. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * They are now at 5r. Doug Weller  talk 13:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * --RegentsPark (comment) 19:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:JuliaDrydon reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Page semiprotected for a month; user indeffed as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (editor has been warned multiple times but just deletes the notices)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I had written out a lengthy explanation but it seems to have vanished when I saved the report! Anyway, a quick recap: JuliaDrydon has repeatedly added the Nicola Bulley case to the list of cited examples without appropriate sourcing. I have explained that any additions must be accompanied by a reliable source that explicitly ties the case to the MWWS phenomenon. At the discussion on the talk page she promised to stop, but instead logged out and continued editing aonymously from the IP addresses above. They can be verified as being the same editor as they have interacted at Balloon Dog, an unconnected article (see, and ). Judging by her talk page history the problematic behavior isn't confined to just this article either. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconding this report—I warned this user about edit warring/3RR on the Death of Nicola Bulley page but for a different content dispute than what Betty Logan is referring to it seems. First message was a gentle "please discuss to gain consensus", then a 3RR violation warning. 3RR violation diffs (the first 4 are over a period of 24 hours; all 7 diffs cover ~25):
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * I see no evidence that this user wants to discuss content with other editors on this page. Their edits suggest they are genuinely trying to improve the article, but their editing is disruptive and is clear-cut edit warring despite talk page notices and warnings (these have been repeatedly removed by the user, so I must assume they have read the messages). MIDI (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * by for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked JuliaDrydon as a ✅ sock. as an FYI.--  Ponyo bons mots 20:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:HoneymoonAve27 reported by User:AlexBachmann (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * It's not a brightline violation of 3RR, but there is a slow-motion edit war. I have reverted again, based on the discussion started by AlexBachmann at Talk:Pristina which has generated no responses over the last 48 hours. I strongly suggest you engage in that discussion and explain what the sources are you are trying to use, so you can build consensus about them being allowable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The text that the editor is trying to remove has been around for years and is properly supported by a source (Serbian Literary Cooperative). — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @HoneymoonAve27 Why have you not explained why the SLC is a reliable source at the talk page, then? —C.Fred (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At first this is to be discussed on the talk page of the article.
 * Secondly "Serbian Literary Cooperative" is not allowed on such controversial articles, especially involving Kosovo. The sources are clearly outdated and do not have any value today and are not supported by any modern evidence. It is also bold that the user reverted your edit on Pristina whitout reaching any consensus. Just because it "has been there for years" does not implicate that is can't be removed now. AlexBachmann (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought there was no need to discuss the reliability of this Cooperative. There are many Serbian and Albanian sources in the article, I don't see what would be controversial. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Especially on historical facts reliable and modern sources are to be used. AlexBachmann (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Honeymoonave27 keeps reverting even after being warned and reverted by the admin C.Fred. Other editors have intervened but Honeymoon27 has not reflected yet. Someone else is needed to take a look. I am not involved in the content dispute but Idk whether I can do sth of help. I am pinging the last admin to have edited this page, maybe they are willing to so sth to stop this. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of behavior that, if the editor reported were a) just doing this on this article, b) actively participating in discussion and c) possibly in possession of, or making, a valid point, I'd consider nothing stronger than a one-week partial block to nudge them into further discussion. But ... here none of these are true. A review of Honeymoon's edit history shows that they have been doing this to a lesser extent on plenty of other articles. On this article's talk page, they involve themselves only to diffidently handwave the entire discussion with the status-quo stonewalling they have deployed with equal vigor in edit summaries—"It's always been there" or "I thought there was no need to check it" (the use of the past tense in the latter being rather at odds with the tenor of their arguments which suggest that the present tense would be more appropriate). When they blithely reverted C.Fred (see diffs above), a previously uninvolved administrator, with the same "logic", it became impossible not to strongly believe this was just due to ignorance or disinterest, but instead arose from actual contempt. So, therefore, a sitewide block for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Adam Eran reported by User:Izno (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Heterodox Macroeconomic fiscal policy */"
 * 2)  "/* Macroeconomic fiscal policy */"
 * 3)  "/* Macroeconomic fiscal policy */"
 * 4)  "Heterodox Economics Disagrees with "Crowding out" as does the Bank of England"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Besides the discrete WP:3RR failure, there is quite a large failure on WP:NPOV and WP:OR lines, both on the material included and how it is included. This editor seems to be a SPA regarding this topic given previous attempts to include similar text. I would be inclined to issue an indefinite partial block, but I've made one of the reverts identifying these issues with the chunk of text this user is attempting to add. Izno (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Izno for bringing this to the noticeboard. I reverted edits by this user. Two years ago, this user also edited the talk page of the article where the 3RR violation occurred. I think this is the same issue but I haven't looked at diffs from that far back. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely pblocked the user. I would have liked to see someone address the user's questions on his Talk page, but the edits were so blatantly disruptive, I blocked without it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, I could've done more to address the user's questions. Apologies for not doing so. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You still can. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

User:91.148.113.108 reported by User:Justarandomamerican (Result: Rangeblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Heya! If you do not understand topic discussed here or its background or summaries I write you should not get involved with articles that cover that topic. Take care."
 * 2)  "Say that to editor who keeps pushing these croatian right-wing sources in order to justify racist attack on Canadian goalkeeper."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note: This IP is part of a range that has been pushing the same POV for 2 days now, so I have almost certainty that they are either the same person or coordinated. Page protection or a range block may be required. Thanks! Justarandomamerican (talk) If you're here to build a encyclopedia, have a nice day doing so! 20:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, why do you involve yourself in topics you clearly know nothing about nor its background. I explained clearly in previous summaries why am I reverting. 91.148.113.108 (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I only reverted your edits because you were pushing the same POV as three different IPs. It can be assumed that you also have control of those IPs, and you have been edit warring. Justarandomamerican (talk) If you're here to build a encyclopedia, have a nice day doing so! 20:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * : 91.148.64.0/18 blocked for (another) 6 months due to ongoing disruption from this range.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:2413:8100:684B:6D06:6719:8A87 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result:Page protected, range blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */Untrue facts and comments based on unreliable media comments"
 * 2)  "/* 2022 Australia Cup */Completely untrue statements based on media propaganda and uninformed individuals"
 * 3)  "/* Recent era */Deletion of untrue facts"
 * 4)  "/* Recent era */Corrections"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clearly vandalism, also /64, content removal without discussing with others. -Lemonaka‎ 00:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Result:
 * Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "failed verification; The source does NOT give a population figure of 4,059,372 residents. Head of the Donetsk Regional State Administration, Pavlo Kyrylenko was quoted by Ukraine’s Centre for Strategic Communications and Information Security on 22 April 2022 that there were “about 430,000 people remaining in the Donetsk Region,” not merely Donetsk city itself. He went on to say that immediately prior to 24 February 2022 the population of the Donetsk Region had decreased to 1.67 million"
 * 2)  "restore vandalized content;  The source does NOT give a population figure of 4,059,372 residents. Head of the Donetsk Regional State Administration, Pavlo Kyrylenko was quoted by Ukraine’s Centre for Strategic Communications and Information Security on 22 April 2022 that there were “about 430,000 people remaining in the Donetsk Region,” not merely Donetsk city itself. He went on to say that immediately prior to 24 February 2022 the population of the Donetsk Region had decreased to 1.67 million"
 * 3)  "failed verification; restored vandalized entries"
 * 1)  "failed verification; restored vandalized entries"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring about population numbers */ new section"

Comments:

They made more changes, but I concentrated here on those changing the "population_total" parametre from " 4059372" to "  unknown". They are also very uncommunicative - I gave them two warnings for missing edit summaries and they made 0 edits in talk space (720 edits, 100 % in main space).

Moreover, they frequently add maintenance templates without giving a reason, for which @User:Ymblanter already gave them a warning, but they continue. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * My earlier interactions with the user gave me an impression that they randomly insert completely unneeded maintenance templates to the articles, possibly to increase the edit count. I reverted these edits where I found them. However, deliberately removing relevant reliably sourced information (population in the infobox) from the article and repeating it is clearly beyond the pale and I believe must result in a block. Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the user's edit history suggests they are here to build an encyclopedia. Seems purely disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

User:No malingmaling reported by User:Roundish (Result: Blocked for 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempt on article talk page, the users involved both seem to be disinclined to discuss this. There is a section in No malingmaling's talk page.

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

Comments: I am uninvolved with this edit war aside from one revert and a warning Roundish   ⋆  t c) 19:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I blew through this article while on vandal patrol, broke the page markup due to repeated spurious edits, attempted to fix my errors, noticed the pov edits continuing. have backed off, waiting for someone with more knowledge regarding this world region. thanks for the help, Saintstephen000 (talk)
 * Blocked for 24h by .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

User:185.48.129.39 reported by User:Vacant0 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Correction."
 * 2)  "Correction"
 * 3)  "Correction"
 * 4)  "Correction"
 * 5)  "Correction of mistakes"
 * 6)  "Actualisation"
 * 7)  "Correction of mistake"
 * 8)  "Corrected mistakes."
 * 9)  "Made actualisation."
 * 1)  "Correction of mistake"
 * 2)  "Corrected mistakes."
 * 3)  "Made actualisation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Civic Platform."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Addition of unsourced (and incorrect) content Vacant0 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Another revert. Standard ideology warrior behaviour. — Czello 18:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * since it was more than four reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Billy reside reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Billy reside

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

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

Comments:


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

User:MrDante1047 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked one week)
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:
 * 1)   "/* Atomic heart editing */ Reply"

Comments:

Multiple attempts to change the genre of the game Atomic Heart, with their only source being primary. WP:IDHT sure seems to apply here. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 01:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to edit-warring at Atomic Heart (video game), the user was also edit-warring at System Shock (2023 video game). Blocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Patch455 reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: Blocked 24h; then from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Of course but it should stay out of the lead."
 * 2)  "Undid revision. But it’s too graphic. It doesn’t read well."
 * 3)  "Too detailed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring. Won't engage in talk page and advised not to edit war in edit summary. Removing substance from medical article. Editor has past history of edit warring. MartinezMD (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Still edit warring. Still won't engage on talk page for consensus. MartinezMD (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Evilcasper reported by User:2601:194:4100:78C0:E891:70F2:7A50:2561 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Consistent vandalism by @Evilcasper on Sports in Kansas City article without providing clear rationale/explanation for reverting my edits (not being consistent with other Wiki articles regarding same subject matter, which I stated multiple times and is ignoring) + violation of WP:3RR. 2601:194:4100:78C0:E891:70F2:7A50:2561 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . Evilcasper's edits are not vandalism, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:SpruceyWind reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Use correct sources, or get blocked."
 * 2)  "incorrect use of sources."
 * 3)  "incorrect use of sources."
 * 4)  "incorrect sources for claims made."
 * 5)  "If you want to say Hindu astrology is a pseudoscience, provide links that study Hindu astrology and proclaim it to be a pseudoscience, NOT links that study Western astrology."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on Western astrology."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unwarranted threats and false accusations are not welcome. */ Per Wikipedia policy, disputed content needs a source."

Comments:

Similar edits on Western astrology. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd already blocked as you were posting this report. Ponyo bons mots 21:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:IslandScholar reported by User:GhostOfDanGurney (Result:Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ''User has multiple edit warring templates on talk page, and was warned by not to continue edit warring on the article in question. Involving removal of AfD template, so I believe that this is beyond talk page discussion.''

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

Comments: User is reverting the addition of an AfD notice, which has led them to cross the bright line. This has come after multiple warnings in their brief history. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 23:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Ponyo bons mots 23:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:196:4601:8FF0:13D3:6C9:13F5:D529 reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: /64 range blocked one month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Your not even explaining why we can't use that term. Also, why bother disagreeing about that. Just because you disagree doesn't always mean you can revert it all because of that. That's not how it works. You know that right."
 * 2)  "I looked at the page and it does not say However is not allowed."
 * 3)  "I looked at the Rules and it does not say the term However is not allowed. So there's no evidence saying that."
 * 4)  "The term However is not informal or a rule on Wikipedia. Explain why we can't use that term?"
 * 5)  "It was received is a bit misunderstanding sentence."
 * 6)  "That's your opinion. It's necessary for any extra information."
 * 7)  "Why do you care, it's not even a bad term as it's just on extra information, and neither has any evidence saying the term However is not allowed. What's wrong with However. It is nothing wrong."
 * 8)  "Rewording in a complete sentence."
 * 1)  "That's your opinion. It's necessary for any extra information."
 * 2)  "Why do you care, it's not even a bad term as it's just on extra information, and neither has any evidence saying the term However is not allowed. What's wrong with However. It is nothing wrong."
 * 3)  "Rewording in a complete sentence."
 * 1)  "Rewording in a complete sentence."
 * 1)  "Rewording in a complete sentence."
 * 1)  "Rewording in a complete sentence."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has persistently changed the lead sentence to use "however" which tends to not comply with WP:NPOV. Has continued reverting despite having been warned for edit warring. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Fully endorse, I just haven't done it myself because I'm technically INVOLVED. Sergecross73   msg me  00:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the /64 range for one month. The user has been disruptive across many articles for a very long time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Gemmaso reported by User:Hunan201p (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  16:00 26 February
 * 2)  16:48 26 February
 * 3)  00:18 27 February
 * 4)  01:57 27 February
 * 5)  07:09 27 February

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Please understand: I was the one who edited first today and repeatedly got reverted. Hunan201p had falsely edited a claim of Odegei Khan in red hair since 18 July 2022, by falsely adding that he had "reddish beard and mustache".   I checked the sources very carefully and decided to remove. THE QUOTE he used says "A portrait of a man with a light-colored beard and mustache and a turquoise cap." but he decided to add something EXTRA... "with reddish beard and mustache". That is clearly Original research. So in today's 2023 I decided to remove what was obviously fake source with fake caption. Instead of edit warring and reverting my post he should have found a expert to sort out everything.

I started a Talk:Red hair so that we can sort out our dispute, a lot of time it took him hours to reply, while I replied he be wasting hours of time on other topic and never respond until I revert. Every time I asked for Hunan201p to provide a medieval description of Odegei Khan having red hair or a medieval historian during his lifetime for evidence and confirmation of Odegei Khan having red hair, he never does it, but instead being very manipulative by using secondary language blogs opinions and one modern historian who can only speculate that he had red hair based on the portrait drawn hundred years after he died. That portrait of Odegei Khan is unreliable.Gemmaso (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * NOTE: this is a reverse filing of a case above. My comments there:
 * From my brief experience of this wide-ranging dispute at Talk:Ögedei Khan, seems to be applying their own original definition of WP:RS which apparently values primary sources over secondary ones (from the edit summary at that page: "Provide medieval historical sources instead"). Above, they are also dismissing an article by noted sinologist Victor H. Mair on a University of Pennsylvania website, attracting comments from Peter Benjamin Golden among others, as "a fake secondary original research blog", which I think says quite a lot about their lack of competence in this topic area at least.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will revert my mistakes if needed. The whole original problem was the portrait of Ogedei Khan being treated as authentically confirmed red hair person, or he was part of the real red hair people of 1-2% of the world. There is no medieval historical record, witness, historian that claims it, so I removed it. If was wrong I will restore it and give up. I really read the rules carefully and I can admit my mistakes. I truly believed I was correct and Hunan201p was wrong and manipulating.


 * Anyway I don't know who those people are but they all came from a blog, and they are blog comments. Are these tiny fraction of commenters suppose to represent mainstream history? whether they are real comments or not, I wouldn't know. I be convinced if it was any of these were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
 * In general, the most reliable sources are:
 * Peer-reviewed journals
 * Books published by university presses
 * University-level textbooks
 * Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
 * Mainstream newspapers
 * Nothing about publishing a blog being reliable

Like I said I follow the rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Historical_portraits_and_pictures


 * " Authentic portraits are ideal, but none exist for the vast majority of historic personalities. Where they exist, authentic portraits, i.e. artistic depictions of a person that purport to provide an individualized, authentic representation of that person's unique looks, based either directly or indirectly on a witness's first-hand experience of their physical appearance, are obviously the best choice for illustrating history and biography articles about that person. Unfortunately, for individuals from most pre-modern cultures, such portraits are unavailable."Gemmaso (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what you are writing, ? I have linked to the Wikipedia article of the person who wrote the article; you say "I don't know who those people are". We are talking about what reliable sources are; you quote from an irrelevant essay on portraits and say meaninglessly "I follow the rules". I tell you that the article is on the domain of the Linguistic Data Consortium of the University of Pennsylvania; you conveniently pretend you don't know what that means.
 * Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. (WP:RSSELF) AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I checked their names. I didn't know who they were because they were communicating and disputing at the bottom of the comment section like any random youtuber. I didn't know a language blog link like  represented opinions of experts. Why would so many experts comment in a blog instead of a relevant article? Anyway Hunan201p didn't used it as a source because it was a blog, so I dismissed it.
 * I'm willing to change back what I had done wrong. I did read the rules and follow it. Was I wrong about the blogs not being allowed to use as source?  I though by self-published means publication in a decent article or genetic study.ect
 * There is really no point in continuing because I am clearly not a expert in this and I give up disputing. I only seek answer if the content I removed from Hunan201p about Odegei Khan being confirmed red haired was correct or not, that simple. If wrong I will restore it. That was the whole original point of these edit warring that we both made. We now stopped and settled in discussion. A simple answer from a expert is enough. Gemmaso (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It has been a couple of days since this report with no edits to the article, but plenty of the discussion above. It seems from Gemmaso's response above that this was enough. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Gemmaso reported by User:Hunan201p (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  This 2016 genetic study doesn't belong here.
 * 2)  Restore the the 2016 genetic study for now but it failed to include that all 5 bodies belong to the East Eurasian Mongoloid physical type
 * 3)
 * 4)  The genetic section also mention the anthropology. study 2016 Lkhagvasuren " All physical anthropological parameters indicate that the skulls of the Tavan Tolgoi graves were all anthropologically Mongoloid"
 * 5)  I'm going to play your game Hunan201p and do this step by step. From the 2016 study Lkhagvasuren, that hunan201p posted. It clearly says " All physical anthropological parameters indicate that the skulls of the Tavan Tolgoi graves were all anthropologically Mongoloid", there is NO REASON to remove this as anthropology terms are also used in the section. I changed to East Asian anyway.
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Gemmaso 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:

An SPI investigation exists here. User conduct is consistent with WP:NOTHERE, definitely not a new member, for example:
 * Why are you giving me warning when you have a long history of getting warnings? Hunan201p (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My response: Please understand that I had not reverted any of his edits in Golden Horde page but he reverted all the information that I added. ALL THE REVERTS is restoring back my information not removing any of what Hunan201p I had send message to him in talk page and invited him to have a discussion but ignored all of them. Sorry if this was a edit warring.

I had discovered that Hunan201p has a history of tampering sources, editing the parts he likes and excluding the parts he doesn't like. I can show many examples from Talk:Red_hair to Talk:Golden_Horde. The 2016 genetic study he included is just a hypothesis from the author (NOT CONFIRMED) but he edited the hypothesis genetic like it real confirmed. Gemmaso (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And now you have altered the original content again - Hunan201p (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My response again. I have corrected it and checked it probably. I established the link that says "all Tavan Togai bodies were anthropologically East Asian", something you ignored it. In the Talk:Red_hair you clearly lied, you claim the editor JJnito from November 2022 edited ( I don't even know if your the same person or not) but your the original editor because yours comes from July 2022 Your using a fake secondary blog as your answer? https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=48160 That is clearly original research and it's probably you who created the blog. Why didn't use that language blog if you think it's realible. In the end your source only says "light colored beard", nothing about having red bard or mustaches. Odegei Khan also has portraits of him with dark hair and dark eyes. There is no official record and description of him with red hair, if that is it would be mainstream history.The red hair is bad interpretation. "according to John Andrew Boyle, Rashid al-Din's text of red hair referred to ruddy skin complexion, and that Genghis Khan was of ruddy complexion like most of his children except for Kublai Khan who was swarthy. He translated the text as “It chanced that he was born 2 months before Möge, and when Chingiz-Khan's eye fell upon him he said: “all our children are of a ruddy complexion, but this child is swarthy like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqoqtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be reared"Gemmaso (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

To the administrator I had been reverted two times despite the fact that Hunan201p doesn't have any authentic source that shows Odegei Khan had red hair (neither historical description) but instead uses superficial subjective blog opinions as evidence. You can look at the discussion on the Talk:Red_hair.Gemmaso (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC) REVERTED ME THREE TIMES. I spend hours waiting for reply and he doesn't do anything until you revert his answer in the article, even now he ignores my last reply because he has no first account independent records to prove it.Gemmaso (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * From my brief experience of this wide-ranging dispute at Talk:Ögedei Khan, seems to be applying their own original definition of WP:RS which apparently values primary sources over secondary ones (from the edit summary at that page: "Provide medieval historical sources instead"). Above, they are also dismissing an article by noted sinologist Victor H. Mair on a University of Pennsylvania website, attracting comments from Peter Benjamin Golden among others, as "a fake secondary original research blog", which I think says quite a lot about their lack of competence in this topic area at least.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a note to point out that the two editors above are also edit warring on the Red Hair article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The red hair is indeed the main subject of this dispute, as can be seen in the duplicated section below and many talk pages linked therein. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I noted on the other dispute involving these two, there has been no activity on the article in question for several days, as discussion above, and on the other report, has proceeded. Since it seems to be settled for now, there is no need for any action here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User:LordAndSaviourMargretThatcher reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

User has repeatedly tried to add a long, unsourced list of "potential" candidates for this election. In their last attempt, their edit summary was "Fuck you the sources a fucking obvious look at the pages for parties". While they have not broken 3RR, this sort of incivility should be more than enough for a block.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First attempt to add the unsourced list
 * 2) First revert (as an IP)
 * 3) Second revert (with the uncouth edit summary)

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

Comments:

That was one out-of-line edit summary on the second revert of that edit in ... four days. Enough for a warning, which I gave; hardly anywhere near enough for a block for a user who has not been blocked and does not show any history (at least recently) of outbursts like this. This report really did not need to be brought here, and probably shouldn't have been made on any noticeboard to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Mercresis reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Mercresis moved page Yakutiye Medrese to Yakutiye Medresesi over redirect: There is no such building as "Yakutiye Medrese" in Turkey (it's grammatically wrong in Turkish). Either give it the original Turkish name "Yakutiye Medresesi" or its English translation "Yakutiye Madrasa"."
 * 2)  "Mercresis moved page Yakutiye Medrese to Yakutiye Medresesi over redirect: Yakutiye Medresesi article in the Turkish Wikipedia: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakutiye_Medresesi"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* February 2023 */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* February 2023 */ last warning; if you do this again you will be reported to WP:ANI"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User edit-warring over article titles by twice repeating an undiscussed page move after it had already been reverted, and despite multiple warnings on their user talk page. They also did the same thing at Ince Minaret Madrasa, where they repeated a move (this) after it had already been reverted and a notice was given to them. Their responses on their user talk page seem to indicate they don't understand (or don't want to understand) the problem. R Prazeres (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * "Yakutiye Medrese" is grammatically wrong in Turkish. The correct Turkish form in this case is "Yakutiye Medresesi" and the correct form in English is "Yakutiye Madrasa". It would be more logical to choose one of these two names. The difference between "Medrese" and "Medresesi" (e.g., "Gök Medrese" and "Yakutiye Medresesi") is grammatically similar to the difference between "Cami" and "Camii" (e.g., "Ulu Cami" and "Nuruosmaniye Camii"). But don't worry: many Turks don't know how and when to use "Cami" and "Camii" correctly. Mercresis (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the dispute over İnce Minareli Medrese: "İnce" means "Thin" or "Slender" in Turkish. "İnce Minaret Madrasa" is half-Turkish, half-English. Either rename it as "İnce Minareli Medrese" or as its English translation "Thin Minaret Madrasa" or "Slender Minaret Madrasa". I support the original Turkish name. For example, "Hagia Sophia" means "Holy Wisdom" in Greek ("St. Sophia" is a commonly made wrong translation), but it's never translated to other languages this way. With the same logic, I support the original name also for İnce Minareli Medrese (no need to translate it as "Slender Minaret Madrasa", as Hagia Sophia is never translated as "Holy Wisdom" in other languages). Mercresis (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "Yakutiye Medresesi" article in the Turkish Wikipedia: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakutiye_Medresesi Mercresis (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of Turkish grammar: Medrese -> Medresesi = Cami -> Camii Mercresis (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the grammar rule in Turkish: Adjective + Medrese (e.g., Gök Medrese), or Name + Medresesi (e.g., Yakutiye Medresesi). Similarly, Adjective + Cami (e.g., Ulu Cami), or Name + Camii (e.g., Nuruosmaniye Camii). Mercresis (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For the note: "Gök" means "sky" in modern Turkish, but one of its archaic meanings was "blue" (historically, it meant both "sky" and "blue"). Gök Medrese means "Sky-blue (Celeste-blue) Madrasa", and in this case "Gök" is an "adjective", not a name. Likewise, Göksu River (where Frederick Barbarossa died) is often translated as "Skywater River" based on its meaning in modern Turkish, but the archaic meaning of "Celeste-blue-water River" is more correct. Mercresis (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are you trying to provide Turkish lessons here, when that is besides the point that myself and other editors made to you: that you are edit-warring and completely ignoring the process for moving articles with a proper consensus? Consider: After all that, you still continued to engage in a move war (the last diff here). Do understand what you're doing wrong, or not? R Prazeres (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) You were given clear notices on your talk page  about the general guidelines for article titles on the English Wikipedia.
 * 2) Every revert of your page moves directly links to the guideline (WP:RMUM) that explicitly tells you to start a WP:RM if your bold move is reverted once.
 * 3) I gave you a direct warning about edit-warring on your talk page. (And you were warned about this behaviour last year too, here.)
 * 4) And I again directed you explicitly here and here to use the WP:RM process to propose a move instead.
 * Yet again a discussion that the parties seemed to have avoided having has broken out here. With only three moves today, the threshold has not been crossed although Mercresis stepped right up to the edge. But I see fault on RP's part as well: you have not responded to his question about the preferred Turkish name being grammatically incorrect, and you cite consensus but provide no link for an admin to review it. I see nothing wrong with submitting this to discussion at RM. The outcome will have consensus, and it is infinitely better than going on like this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case: You may wish to reconsider. Not only is this user prolifically renaming pages on English Wikipedia into the Turkish language and away from common names in English, but they also disruptively moved at least one page twice yesterday: first instance, second instance, after it was restored to an English title through a technical move request: . Iskandar323 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's too soon for intervention, that's fine. Next time I'll wait until the situation is more clear-cut. For what it's worth, though, it's hard to judge how much effort is enough effort in trying to convince a determined disruptor to stop. (And I'd say moving an article three times, and another twice, when multiple editors have made clear there's no consensus for those moves, is pretty disruptive.) I haven't answered all of Mercresis' subsequent questions precisely because I don't want to volunteer my whole day trying to convince one editor that they're wrong, when there's already a process in place to sort out article names, and that process doesn't rely strictly on my view.
 * For now, I'll open a general discussion at least at the Yakutiye article's talk page, and restore the old name again. R Prazeres (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is why admins here often leave reports like this untouched. We so like finding out after a decline that there was a lot more to the story we didn't know about that, apparently, we were supposed to, regardless of how arcane the topic area is to most editors. I based my close purely on what was here; I saw no evidence that this had been discussed seriously until above (and, frankly, if you "don't want to volunteer [your] whole day trying to convince one editor that they're wrong", you don't get to be dismayed when they keep move-warring because no one's tried to convince them that they're wrong).
 * We really didn't have to take this ... please note that the page title is "Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring". There is no obligation for us to take move-warring disputes (for one thing, unlike edit warring, we lack a clear bright-line rule as to when move-warring must be sanctioned). In retrospect I should have just referred this to AN/I; in the future I will do this with any move-warring disputes reported here.
 * That said, I appreciate that you have decided to leave this be for the moment and use the existing processes you referred to. And I also agree that if Mercresis keeps move-warring after this, it's a different story. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this reply and for your time. This also clarifies a few things. I initially wasn't sure whether this report belonged here or at WP:ANI, so it's useful to know similar cases would belong there in the future. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User:2604:3D09:1476:D330:45F7:3FD6:9E1B:163B reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: /64 range blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

5RR for this particular IP. Part of an IP range concentrating on the page. <b style="color:#9E0508;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  03:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I do not understand what is the 5RR? 2604:3D09:1476:D330:45F7:3FD6:9E1B:163B (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * See your talk page. Regards, <b style="color:#9E0508;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  04:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * /64 range blocked 3 months (dupe of report just above).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:2604:3D09:1476:D330:C447:5E29:8623:6031 reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: /64 range blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  the reference article have some not legitimate .such a as he entered the LLM in 2018, but the it was written in 2017 which is wrong. His occupation at the time of the engagement was a paralegal, therefore some contents are not legit in the references
 * 2)  There is no his name on the list of the recognition page of the commencement for the Class of 2021 at Fordham University. https://www.fordham.edu/commencement/past-ceremonies/commencement-for-the-class-of-2021/
 * 3)  "Added links"
 * 4)  "clearly, the spell of name is wrong,his occupation at the time of the announcement of the engagement was a part time paralegal while attending evening classes  at the Hitotsubashi University : Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy"
 * 5)  "name spelled wrong, there’s no official announcement about his graduation on May 23rd, 2021 provided from Fordham University, his admitted date was wrong in the reference provided."
 * 1)  "name spelled wrong, there’s no official announcement about his graduation on May 23rd, 2021 provided from Fordham University, his admitted date was wrong in the reference provided."

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

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

Comments: BLP discussion Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the article history there has been disruptive editing from the same dynamic ip range over the last several days. Reverts of their edits by other editors over the same issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just realised THEYCANTHEARYOU since they are using the iOS mobile app. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * /64 range blocked 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:DFoidl reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  Edit summary suggests the editor thought they were reverting the same content again; the material I restored in the preceding edit was a different passage I found when looking through the version history and otherwise unrelated to the current content dispute.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Note: this editor has been warned previously about edit warring in the same subject area)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * DFoidl has repeatedly removed content in this subject area over the last few years, often sourced content they personally disagree with. Their deletions are made generally without reference to policy and sometimes with miscomprehension of the sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Swan787 reported by User:25Means (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Hi there! I was a bit concerned seeing some unsourced and biassed language on the above page, a biography of a living person in an active political race, when I came across it earlier today (see my note on the talk page for more info). I attempted to fix the problem by preserving the new information shared (such as additional information on policies and endorsements) while adding balancing information so as to preserve a NPOV, and started a discussion on the editor in question's talk page, as well as the talk page on the article--though I haven't heard anything back from the editor in question, as they've continued to mass-revert. Rather than edit warring, I thought I'd post a notice here so we can work this out. Appreciate all of your help. 25Means (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I indefinitely blocked Swan787 for edit-warring at multiple articles, POV-editing, and some personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I'm going to go ahead and revert the page to the last edit prior to their mass-reversion pending further discussion on the talk page about what to do with the information they added. 25Means (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Shivarjun Das reported by User:Anachronist (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (although the term "widely" in "widely criticized" should be removed, as that is the current version being reverted to)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management&diff=prev&oldid=1142888946 diff (part of a 2 part revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Also noting this is an SPA, who has already been warned about PAID (I concur with that assessment). DMacks (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

At the beginning of February, Shivarjun Das appeared as a single-purpose account, and proceeded to engage in some whitewashing activity. He has used misleading edit summaries, characterizing as a "typo" the removal of reliable sources and changing the meaning of a sentence to its opposite, and he has been using the lead section of the article for the purpose of proclaiming breaking news, in spite of being told repeatedly that this is not what the lead section is for.

Note that this article has had problems in the past (covered in reliable sources) with another SPA who eventually became an admin and was subsequently defrocked and blocked, described in the article at Indian Institute of Planning and Management, so we are senstive when new SPAs appear exhibiting similar behavior. Shivarjun Das has denied being a paid editor on his talk page, but the behavior suggests at least an association. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's likely an indefinite block is on the horizon, but at this point I've blocked the user for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Raven9nine reported by User:Manyareasexpert (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

'''Previous version reverted to: No content - article has been deleted - Articles for deletion/Alley of Angels

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: Talk:Alley of Angels

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

Comments:

Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Raven9nine for 24 hours, with a note explaining why in more detail. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

User:BeanieFan11 reported by User:Therapyisgood (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:

BeanieFan11 has previously been reported to ANI for bludgeoning at AFD here, which led to a broader discussion about WikiProject NFL and his behavior in general. While 3RR has not been violated by either BeanieFan11 or, I would support a warning for especially BeanieFan11. I would warn normally but I'm WP:INVOLVED with BeanieFan11 as I reported him to ANI earlier in the year, about a month ago. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That list is for only those who have no coverage at all that could possibly be considered sigcov. That coverage is arguably sigcov and that person is automatically notable for being in a national biographical dictionary, so should not be listed. Also, I think its worth noting that the other day BilledMammal made six reverts of me (when I only did three - I would not violate 3RR). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As a correction, both BeanieFan11 and I have violated 3RR. I apologize for my action yesterday two days ago ; it shouldn't have happened, but I lost count of the number of reverts I made and made five. I note, however, that these reverts were to undo changes to my proposal, and believe they shouldn't have happened without my agreement per WP:TPO.
 * BeanieFan11 violated 3RR both yesterday and today. I haven't counted the number of times they reverted yesterday, but today they made at least four; one partial and three full. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I have not violated 3RR – removing one entry from a list of 1,000 in this case is not a "revert" (when someone has reverted that, and then I revert it back, that would be a revert. But I have not done that more than three times so am not in violation of 3RR). I would not violate 3RR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You undid part of my comment; that is a partial revert. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that statement. As one support !voter said, "I supported this extraordinary proposal only on specific conditions, including the absence of any SIGCOV. If SIGCOV have even arguably been added to some small portion of the articles, those articles should be stricken from the list" – I was adding sigcov and removing them from the extremely long list, as they should be. I do not believe that counts as a "revert." BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That almost certainly counts as a revert. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, and it seems so does Therapyisgood (While 3RR has not been violated by either BeanieFan11...). 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * " Partial reversion involves restoring one part of the page to a previous version, but leaving other contributions intact. ... The three-revert rule (part of the edit warring policy) limits the number of times an editor can revert edits (including partial reversions) on a page."WP:REVERT. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I should not have to request on your talk page to remove entries from that list that are clearly notable and have been improved so that they no longer meet the criteria you listed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would prefer you work on a different list until after the RfC ends to avoid disruption but if you insist on working on this one then I already gave you permission to remove articles when they contain sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG.
 * My objection come from you removing articles where you have added a single trivial source, or where you added some text but no sources. I also object to you removing articles like Defkalion Rediadis from the list, where it appears that you haven't accessed the sources you provided and instead copied them with the help of a machine translation from the Greek Wikipedia (one source is an offline source, the other one is a dead link). BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The list is a list of articles that hadn't been edited in years. It's transparent that beanie is going through the list trying to find a reason to make an edit in order to remove them from the list. The list was made according to certain criteria; beanie is trying to edit all the articles so they no longer meet the criteria. Beanie was involved in the pre-RFC and didn't do this then, instead waiting until the RfC started. I asked Beanie on his talk page to stop but he continued. This is a TPO issue: BM should be able to make a proposal without Beanie trying to alter the proposal. Beanie can !vote (and has made many comments already) and point out perceived deficiencies with the list. He is spamming my watchlist making so many edits to that page, trying to winnow a list of 900+ articles down 1 by 1, which doesn't even make a difference to the overall RfC. It's pure disruption to try and win an RfC. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The list is for those who have no sigcov currently and no significant edits other than Lugnuts. Many of those are clearly notable. I was going through and improving the clearly notable ones (with sigcov, expansions) so that they would not be removed from Wikipedia if the proposal passes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I had improved a few before the RFC started when the pre-RFC discussion was going on; however, that period of time was not very long and so I was unable to improve many articles in that time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think its more a general competence issue, if they don't know what a revert is and they don't know how they're supposed to behave on talk pages after three years and 24k edits thats ummm yeah... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Beanie is still editing articles so he can remove them from the RFC. Now approaching 100 edits to the VPR RFC. Levivich (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I still haven't violated anything. It is acceptable to remove them if they have sigcov; if you would say that is not sigcov, then we can discuss it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need for you to be making so many edits to that RFC. You've made 72 edits to this RFC since it opened 48hrs ago. Please do not make a 73rd. Levivich (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems like both editors understand the issue in question and know what to do in the future. I'm more concerned that the same small handful of editors is engaging in what I would regard as borderline harassment of. The user that started this thread also started the initial discussion, which ended in no action being taken against BeanieFan11 - there was no consensus for any form of warning, even, let alone a sanction of any kind. The second discussion has been even more clear, with most people expressing straight-up confusion over how notifying Sports WikiProjects of the potential mass-userfication of sports articles is a problem; for what it's worth, I've not participated in the RfD in question yet but I'd be inclined to support deleting most of these pages. Holding either thread over BeanieFan11 is simply not fair, and it frankly seems like an attempt to bludgeon them into submission. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * per above. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Aman.kumar.goel reported by User:IceFrappe (Result: Reporter partially blocked from article for a week)
==

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * (note the mass removal of my recent contribution due to obvious personal vendetta)
 * 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

There has been some recent civil discussion about the length of the Gaddafi article and the over-reliance of one dated source with several sub-articles created by another editor (see Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi and Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi) to trim the length without issue until Aman.kumar.goel emerged out of thin air today to mass remove contents he did not like. After a quick glance at Aman.kumar.goel's contribution, it appears he has a political agenda, preoccupied with whitewashing activities, mainly in India-related articles. He has been aggressively revert-warrning to remove certain unflattering content about the subject matter while showing no interest whatsoever in actually writing the article with well-sourced research (as I and others have). He has also engaged in personal attack by baselessly accused good-faith editors of "disruptive editing". A plea for him to start discussing was immediately removed. Again, this is an editor who has shown no inclination whatsoever in actually writing/researching the subject matter; his only interest is in mass removal of content that doesn't fit into his preferred editorial slant/POV of the subject. IceFrappe (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made 3 reverts while you have made 4 reverts in last 24 hours, thus you have violated WP:3RR in clear terms. This is not a revert, but manual content removal.
 * But you have made 4 reverts per your own calculation! First revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert and 4th revert.
 * None of my reverts of your edits have to do with any "personal vendetta" but that your own edits are disruptive. You have nothing to support your edits other than engaging in whataboutery by frequently bringing up some "book in 1987" which is not being disputed anywhere.
 * Your own messages show you don't know have idea about what is WP:RS. You claim that "no rule on wikipedia saying we should favor "book" over newspaper" which clearly contradicts WP:IRS which say that we should prefer academic sources above "newspaper".
 * After understanding that you won't be able to win content dispute with such senseless arguments, you went ahead to file this report just ti win the content dispute. As per the last edit on the talk page, you still haven't responded to any of the concerns I raised about your edits. See WP:BOOMERANG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * was clearly a revert. Just because you did not use the "undo" function and used a misleading edit summary doesn't mean it was not a revert. I did not make 4 reverts. was not a revert as I was introducing brand new materials into the article after your first revert, which you then deliberately removed due to personal vendetta.
 * The funny thing is 1987 book was not written by scholars. Both Andrew Lycett and David Blundy were journalists. Their credibility isn't any better than any Bob Woodward's long-form journalism on the Washington Post from the same era. Anyway, this message board is not the place to discuss the quality of these sources.
 * This is not a content dispute because you have made zero contribution to the actual writing of this article. Your only interest is in mass removal of content that doesn't suit your preferred narrative. I have worked hard on writing/improving this article over the past month ; you have not. Frankly, you're the only one being disruptive here. Hurling insults at me while throwing snippy buzzword like "whataboutery" to conceal your own hypocrisy doesn't change the fact that your disruptive editing damaged a harmonious collaborative editing environment.IceFrappe (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is manual content removal. Not a revert. The edit summary is as perfect as it gets. You are adding initial cable leaks when you are required to put scholarly sources for the subject.
 * Little, Brown and Company is known for academic publications. It is far more reliable than the initial and outdated "newspaper" reports you are including while unsuccessfully using the actual reliable sources as scapegoat to justify your problematic edits.
 * Whataboutery is an English word. It defines your misconduct which is entirely apparent from your messages alone.
 * Just because you "worked hard on writing/improving this article", it doesn't mean that you get to unnecessarily park your content regardless of very problems with the content.
 * Yes you lost the content dispute then only you filed this report. Why else you would file the report instead of resolving the dispute when you have clearly engaged in 3rr (4rr to be exact) violation? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * is clearly a revert. It makes no practical difference whether you used the undo function or not.
 * Little, Brown and Company is not a academic publication and it says so in its own article. The 1987 book is clearly dated and published at a time when Libya had almost no contact with the outside world, much like North Korea now.
 * Whataboutism is a made up buzzword for hypocrites who have no rebuttal for their double standards and hypocrisy. It is neither a real English word nor a Wikipedia violation. The only one with misconduct is you.
 * I did not commit WP:OWN. In fact, I took great pains not to remove any content from other editors out of respect since I started working on this article. You and Midnightblueowl are the ones who mass-removed contents with zero talkpage discussion and unnecessarily park your content regardless of very problems with the content.
 * I did not "lose the content dispute" because this is not a content dispute, given that you have nothing to offer to this article in terms of content. Your only interest is destroying the article. Some people make things. You break things. That's the difference between mainspace article writers and wikilawyers.IceFrappe (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * from the article. Looking over the last month's edit history and the talk page, it seems like the one constant is IceFrappe reverting a whole bunch of other editors until AKG came in recently, with cantankerous edit summaries, and not being willing to budge from his positions much in discussion to the point that he is arguably exercising ownership. It's not too much to keep him from the page for a little bit. Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a travesty and a misrepresentation of what transpired in the past month. I began working quietly on the Gaddafi article on February 2nd and took great pains not to remove any pre-existing content. No one took issue with my writing until Midnightblueowl on February 21st. His only issue was with the length of the article, not the quality of my writing and sources. Midnightblueowl made 19 edits that day, where he unilaterally removed a massive amount of content without discussion . A compromise was reached after User:Horse Eye's Back created Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi and Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi in order to shorten the main Gaddafi article. During the ensuing talkpage discussion, I also raised the issue too much of the article relies on one single extremely dated source at the expense of others and proposed including a more diverse range of high-quality sources. Things did not come to a head until User:Aman.kumar.goel's aggressive disruption without discussion ruined a good compromise/middle ground.IceFrappe (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Asdasf asdas reported by User:DIYeditor (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: and

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:

Doing the same thing on two articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * . I don't know what's going on with the page moves, if the addition of a comma is constructive or not, but I can tell that the ongoing edit war is disruptive. So I have blocked for a week, but I have no objections to an indefinite block, if warranted. Salvio giuliano 14:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't see any good of this user coming back, I imagine they will waste people's time and require another report here or at ANI. These tech articles sometimes attract this kind of person. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 reported by User:Suicasmo (Result: No violation)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: The article content can be supported by the reference link below, but User:Onel5969 still attached notability template. The reason why Onel5969 attached notability template was "not in-depth coverage". However, user can confirm the information mentioned in article (start date, network) from reference links. Suicasmo (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are required to notify of this report on their Talk page as it clearly states at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No violation These are a single revert on five separate articles. To violate 3RR, an editor is required to have made more than three reverts on a single page. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the filer listed only one revert per article, but there are more reverts than that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of them by the filer, by the looks of it. Black Kite (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really. There are two problems here, one more important than the other in my view. The filer has created 5 articles. Onel5969, an experienced reviewer, added notability tags as part of the page curation process. The filer didn't like the tags and removed them, and a mini edit-war ensued between the two users. The main problem is that the filer should not be removing maintenance tags added by reviewers. They are in no position to be objective and the removals are tendentious. Secondarily, Onel5969 should not be edit-warring over it. Instead, an attempt to discuss the problem with the filer should have been made, and if that failed, the filer should have been reported to ANI. My three cents on the whole thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a better venue. I note that the tags have now been restored by an editor other than Onel5969. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Zingo156 reported by User:Foothand (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Comments:

Zingo165 believes he owns the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem page. He keep reverting my edits in the page removing my linking and changing my lead, which is similar to the lead in every single superhero film page, because he doesn't think "it's right", which is a week argument, because if it wasn't right, it wouldn't be the standard in all the superhero film pages. He can't be argued otherwise. - User:Foothand


 * Both editors blocked from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Take it to the talkpage, work it out politely there.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:91.217.105.54 reported by User:Justarandomamerican (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1143065878 Everything is from a perspective. Documentation is a perspective.   The original language states Poland's "most important" trading partner was Germany. How is that neutral exactly?   The lands Poland regained in independence were originally settles by Lechite Slavs. They didn't "belong" to Prussians or Unified Germany."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1143065667 The non-neutral language is the original language. This is neutral from the perspective of the Polish 2nd Republic"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1143065128The non-neutral language is the original language. This is from the perspective of the Polish 2nd Republic, not in defense of barbaric German and Russian attacks on a neighbor."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1143053480 This is a Wiki page of the economy from the perspective on the Polish 2nd Republic. They saw their neighbors as aggressors as that is exactly what occurred."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated edit warring over wording, with no attempt made to start a bold, revert, discuss cycle. Justarandomamerican (talk) If you're here to build a encyclopedia, have a nice day doing so! 19:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Everything is from a perspective. Documentation is a perspective.
 * The original language states Poland's "most important" trading partner was Germany. How is that neutral exactly?
 * The lands Poland regained in independence were originally settles by Lechite Slavs. They didn't "belong" to Prussians or Unified Germany.
 * Where exactly is my lack of explanation? The onus is on you to undo the edit if you believe it is incorrect because I stated what is wrong with the original. 91.217.105.54 (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is correct, that doesn't matter, because you violated both the three revert rule and our policy on writing with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Justarandomamerican (talk) If you're here to build a encyclopedia, have a nice day doing so! 19:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What great wrong? I stated historical fact. The original work is in bad faith and so is your acting. 91.217.105.54 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Neddo23.nr reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked from article)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1143203863 by Czello (talk) incorrect use of the word ‘event’ an event is something that has happened, if the event has happened in a book that is not confirmed to be factual, then it is fictional"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1143192825 by Nythar (talk)"
 * 3)  "Reverted to my previous edit, the Transfiguration of Jesus is not an actual historical event, but a mythological event. Wikipedia is for facts not beliefs."
 * 4)  "Reordered words to accurately describe topic and added link to myth, this topic is not a historical fact, and the opening sentence has been edited to reflect the facts."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* WP:AN/I */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Extensive discussions on user's talk page, including a 3RR warning from myself. User chose to make a 4th revert after the 3RR warning. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As previously discussed I am attempting to correct the incorrect use of the word event in the opening sentence of this article. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You've been asked more than once to discuss issues first per WP:BRD. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That wasn’t at all made clear, Nythar was very antagonistic in their communication, despite my attempts at reasonable explanation. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a consensus from some editors that it doesn’t matter if the truth is misrepresented through the incorrect use of language. This is concerning. Neddo23.nr (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TRUTH, as you've used this word several times now. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned BRD to you here (which you must have read as you replied to it) and raised 3RR with you here. I can't agree that this wasn't made clear. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 13:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * from the article. You are expected to find consensus, you are not entitled to edit-war because you're convinced you're right and other editors are wrong.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:TheGlobMonster reported by User:IceWelder (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User fails to communicate and does not respond to warnings or arguments presented via edit summaries. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 16:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Cladeal832 reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * I haven't revert. They removed information (rather than just put a unverified or unreliable source tag since it wasn't a question of verifiably inaccurate information), I added the information with citations. They didn't like the citation (again that was the unreliable source tag is for), so add another citation. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? These edits are removing information and not adding citations? DrKay (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * One edit, not three of same reverts. Added information I saw, and nobody questioned the accuracy, but proper citation and just tried and tried again to satisfy yet still just removed accurate without putting a tag. I didn't just pick this date out of nowhere, if you're disputing it, unsure why exactly. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * One edit, not three of same reverts. Added information I saw, and nobody questioned the accuracy, but proper citation. I tried yet still just removed accurate without putting a tag. I didn't just pick this date out of nowhere, if you're disputing it, unsure why exactly. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm disputing the date because the two sources I added say it is the 18th. You are the one removing cited information. DrKay (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:KentRSmith reported by User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (Result: Pblocked for a fortnight)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Research */Nocebo Effect is a farse."
 * 2)  "/* Research */Removed bogus reference to unsupported claim of "nocebo effect"."
 * 3)  "/* Research */Provided proper context to the dubious "nocebo effect" as it relates to contaminated bleed air.
 * 1)  "/* Research */Provided proper context to the dubious "nocebo effect" as it relates to contaminated bleed air.

1. The term "nocebo effect" is highly controversial and there is very little evidence that such an effect is valid.

2. There are no studies, let alone peer-reviewed legitimate studies, to indicate that "nocebo effect" has anything to do with contaminated aircraft bleed air.

3. There is suspicion that this term is being presented here by the airline industry to distract from the..."
 * 1)  "/* Research */Added proper context for "nocebo effect"

I can do this as long as it takes. Either make the change to the proper context of nocebo effect or I will take this to another level."
 * 1)  "/* Research */Added proper context to "nocebo effect""
 * 2)  "/* Research */Deleted unsubstantiated claim."
 * 3)  "/* Research */Added proper context to misleading and unsupported statements."
 * 4)  "/* Research */"
 * 5)  "/* Research */Added clarifying statement."
 * 1)  "/* Research */Added clarifying statement."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Aerotoxic syndrome."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA seems adamant to remove one part of the article despite several editors suggesting that it be discussed on the article's talk page and a consensus reached. Has threatened in an edit to "take this to another level" -- presumably meaning a noticeboard. Suggest short-term restriction until consensus can be reached. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Partial Blocked from the article for 2 weeks. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

User:2402:3A80:1E1B:9952:0:3A:7174:FC01 reported by User:Shadow of the Starlit Sky (Result: Page semi-protected for three days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

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

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

Comments:

I think this user might be an IP hopper. Either that, or the user is using different IP's as a way to circumvent WP:3RR.
 * for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

User:158.123.153.250 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: User blocked for 10 years)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

the ip was already cautioned by another editor about not editing against consensus. Untamed1910 (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Smrtnz25 reported by User:Tommi1986 (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1143571585 by Tommi1986 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Replaced with correct name and gave credit to the misnomer. Please see email from Jane member about the name being incorrect."
 * 3)  "Revision of the name from "The Jane Collective" to use the proper original names, either "Jane", "the service", or "The Abortion Counseling Service of the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union". These amendments are made on behalf of original Jane member Judith Arcana (https://www.juditharcana.com/jane). Judith Arcana reached out to members of the Chicago Department of Public Health to advise that the true name of the organization was NOT the Jane collective."
 * 1)  "Replaced with correct name and gave credit to the misnomer. Please see email from Jane member about the name being incorrect."
 * 2)  "Revision of the name from "The Jane Collective" to use the proper original names, either "Jane", "the service", or "The Abortion Counseling Service of the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union". These amendments are made on behalf of original Jane member Judith Arcana (https://www.juditharcana.com/jane). Judith Arcana reached out to members of the Chicago Department of Public Health to advise that the true name of the organization was NOT the Jane collective."
 * 1)  "Revision of the name from "The Jane Collective" to use the proper original names, either "Jane", "the service", or "The Abortion Counseling Service of the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union". These amendments are made on behalf of original Jane member Judith Arcana (https://www.juditharcana.com/jane). Judith Arcana reached out to members of the Chicago Department of Public Health to advise that the true name of the organization was NOT the Jane collective."
 * 1)  "Revision of the name from "The Jane Collective" to use the proper original names, either "Jane", "the service", or "The Abortion Counseling Service of the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union". These amendments are made on behalf of original Jane member Judith Arcana (https://www.juditharcana.com/jane). Judith Arcana reached out to members of the Chicago Department of Public Health to advise that the true name of the organization was NOT the Jane collective."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Despite being told by no less than 3 experienced editors, this user is insisting on edit warring by making unsourced changes <b style="color:red; text-shadow:darkred 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Tommi1986</b> <b style="color:brown">let's talk!</b> 15:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a private communication from an original member of this group. This has been provided to the experienced editors. I do not believe that the original Jane would like her private communications cited in the main Wikipedia article. However, these editors are attempting to discredit an original member of Jane who has communicated to me in a professional capacity that the name, The Jane Collective, is incorrect. I have kept a reference to the incorrect name but would like the article to be updated to reflect the accurate name as mentioned by a living member of the organization in honor of the work the organization has done as well as members living and deceased. While changing the name within the article (even if the title remains as is) does not detract from the content, editors are still refusing to acknowledge the incorrect information. If there is a private channel to share an uncensored version of the email (except for contact information not directly pertaining to Judith Arcana), I would be happy to share. Her website is easily found and her book that discusses her time as a Jane. Smrtnz25 (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add for context that, prior to Tommi1986 posting on my account's personal talk page to not make any more edits to the page in question, I only spoke with one other editor about the revisions. There is no third or more editor. This is also made evident in the page's revision history. Smrtnz25 (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In five days of editing Wikipedia, Smrtnz has shown an interest in editing only this article and making only this edit, their stated COI, and our policies notwithstanding, never once acknowledging explanations as to why they are being reverted. On top of that they have managed to require the oversighting—not just Rev'Deling—of their edit summaries four times. There is no argument against a NOTHERE block. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

User:2603:6011:5702:FF00:2507:5BF9:914B:2E00 reported by User:Tcr25 (Result: Article semi-protected for two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Opinionated uninformative"
 * 2)  "To long an doesn’t hold true to the character given the information an context from the comics"
 * 3)  "Note his relationship with Jean Gray, Storm, Itsu Akihiro and Viper"
 * 1)  "Note his relationship with Jean Gray, Storm, Itsu Akihiro and Viper"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Same edits coming from two other IP addresses, which may or may not be related: 2603:6011:5702:FF00:5995:8A5F:8AB2:FD7E (warned) 173.91.215.28 Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * for two weeks by Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Manannan67 reported by User:Veverve (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Threads of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Heresy in the Catholic Church and Talk:Heresy in the Catholic Church

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

Comments: The user alternates between communicating at the talk page and restoring their edits. They insist on making massive changes throughout the whole article in one single edit. I have always tried to communicate and make the user come and discuss. There was a previous disagreement earlier, which, I guess, we sorted out; but the user seem to want to edit-war about the current disagreement.

Veverve (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Unlike my accuser, I am new to this board, so please bear with me if I am unfamiliar with the protocol. This is in essence a content dispute. Early this morning, in response to a Comment on the Talk page to wit: "The turbulent history of the main early heresies needs coverage..." I added three examples of early heresies. I also cleaned up some clunky phrasing. This was soon reverted. I reverse the revert, and in the edit summary drew attention to the Comment to which I was responding. This too was reverted, so I went to go work on other stuff....Passing by later this evening I made another edit which was reverted with the rather bizarre summary "... you addressed nothing, and then made this edit which is completely different from those done previously" (?!) Was I supposed to duplicate the entry Veverve had already reverted twice? Having drawn their attention to the Talk page I was again reverted for a total of 3X in about 40 minutes (not counting the 2 earlier in the day). A cursory glance at the Talk page will show a good deal of discussion, at least on my part. I have explained the rationale for my edits and requested the same from Veverve, whose replies have been largely unresponsive. The current issue seems to be that Veverve objects to the inclusion of reference to any heresies prior to 1054. I am accused of forcing some kind of POV, but I submit that is the pot slandering the kettle. (As a point of context, I would refer any interested parties to the immediately prior discussion with another editor on Invinsible error, a discussion to which I was not a party.) Manannan67 (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is unrelated to POV. This is you trying to impose changes, and acting as if I am a random hinderance you have to deal with, and not a contributor. Veverve (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * are you sure you wanted to bring this here? With five reverts of your own in 24 hours to your opponents six its hard to imagine that you escape a boomerang if sanctions are placed on the warring parties. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I do not have six reverts, there are 2 this morning regarding one edit, and 2 this evening in restoring a second separate edit. The last is yet a new edit reducing some of the verbiage, not a revert. Thank you. Manannan67 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I count six, although only five are within 24 hours. An edit reducing some of the verbiage is almost certainly a partial revert, no? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not if it is old verbiage, I think. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would pay good money for an authoritative "Is it a revert?" flow chart. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is unfortunate, as both have things to bring to the table, and I think talk page discussion should continue to agree things. I've seen the comments there, but not had the time needed to give my opinion. I will say I don't think 1054 can or should be taken as the start date. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * both have things to bring to the table, and I think talk page discussion should continue to agree things: I disagree. On my hand, I am facing an user hellbent on implementing their version whetever I say, as if they were some kind of saviour and I was an incompetent idiot. On Manannan67's end: Veverve['s] replies have been largely unresponsive. Discussion has proven to be futile. Veverve (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Manannan67 for 72 hours and Veverve, whose block log for edit-warring is extensive and recent, for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Dridhaprahara reported by User:Shibbolethink (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "nothing like that on page 135-136: https://archive.org/details/VaisnavismSaivismMRS/page/n138/mode/1up?view=theater (Talk) User Adikiko"
 * 2)  "provide page number for your citation for verification"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:37, 12 March 2023

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Appears to be a continuation/puppet of User:Inscriptions of India, using identical edit summaries to continue to edit war (00:37, 12 March 2023, 16:13, 11 March 2023, 12:16, 10 March 2023) ‎ as soon as that other user was blocked. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked as a sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

User:1.145.82.195 reported by User:Sheep8144402 (Result: 31 hours for disruptive editing)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, just uncontroversial removal of maintenance templates from unreferenced paragraphs

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

Comments:

Just removal of cn maintenance templates without resolving the issues or a very good reason to do so. They're all unreferenced so these cn tags are valid. Sheep (talk • he/him) 15:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI they were reported to AIV by Roundish. Sheep  (talk • he/him) 15:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Backwardsnap reported by User:2405:201:800B:684F:41DD:D17D:5249:698 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

User:Backwardsnap / IPs are randamly changing GDP figures without providing any source.--2405:201:800B:684F:41DD:D17D:5249:698 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedurally defective. No warning of 3RR given. No notice of this report given. Indeed, there are no posts to the reported user's Talk page at all. Also, there is no 3RR violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

User:WikiWikiWayne reported by User:Alalch E. (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  (between the fourth and fifth revert)

Veteran editor, well aware of 3RR, summary of their fourth revert is please stop edit warring while we are discussing. Prior to that, he was nicely asked not to revert during the ongoing discussion: Special:Diff/1144592268

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Pages that are being actively worked on should not be moved to draft */ new section"

Comments:

The discussion began after my undoing their first revert. The first revert is a revert of the addition in Special:Diff/1124227779 by User:MB.

One of the things the reported party said in the discussion is "Please do not re-add that terminology again. This essay started 10 years ago, without that snippet". I consider this line of reasoning odd, because wouldn't it be normal to consider that the page has improved over the past ten years? As far as engaging substantively in the coversation goes, WikiWikiWayne isn't interested in responding to my concern that they misunderstood the disputed portion, i.e. doesn't appear to want to respond to my argument how the wait period logically can't be understood as "ammo to draftify".

The fourth and fifth reverts are technically broken as the edit summary has been saved to the page. —Alalch E. 16:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48h by .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Ecaterina812 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: EC protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), , , , , , , ,
 * This is a content dispute over the ethnic breakdown of Moldova. Three users are edit-warring, including, , and . The only editor to have violated 3RR is TimothyBlue. No one has discussed the dispute on the article Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I added in the description every time I edited it but seems like others have other views, pro-russian views it seems
 * In 1991, the Declaration of Independence of Moldova named the official language as Romanian. In December 2013, the Constitutional Court of Moldova ruled that the Declaration of Independence takes precedence over the Constitution, and the state language should be called "Romanian". On March 2, 2023, the Moldovan parliament voted in the first reading to replace the phrase "Moldovan language" with "Romanian language" in all legislation of the country. The proposed law was introduced by a group of members of the "Action and Solidarity Party" fraction. Additionally, phrases such as "official language," "state language," and "mother tongue" will also be replaced. The authors of the proposal argue that this change is necessary to implement the constitutional considerations outlined in the decisions of the Constitutional Court, which declared that the state language of the Republic of Moldova is Romanian. The bill also proposes that the National Holiday "Our Language," as it is currently referred to, be renamed "Romanian Language." The proposal passed its first reading with 56 votes in favor. Kapanol420 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The pro-russian always reverts the language to Moldovan, I propose to ban him and only leave the Romanian as official and spoken language. Kapanol420 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Result: The article Moldova has been extended-confirmed protected by User:El C. The response here by User:Kapanol420 was not helpful. Calling someone 'pro-Russian' suggests you view your participation here as part of an ethnic conflict. You want to change the Moldova article based on a bill that has only passed its first reading? As noted above by Bbb23, there is still no discussion on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Bro, read my first reply, but really well, all the arguments are in favor of Romanian being the only and official language of Moldova, the bill that just passed is only a formality to put what the Constitutional Court decided in 2013 that the 1991 Declaration of Independence states that Romanian is the only language of Moldova 213.233.108.233 (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Patch455 reported by User:MartinezMD (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has been blocked for same edit. When the block expired editor made the same edit and did not seek consensus. MartinezMD (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked. This report is malformed. You should have at least listed the two reverts made by the user and a diff pointing to the notice of this complaint to the user (which you did make). It was only because the misconduct was straightforward and obvious that I actioned it.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:JoeyCoffin reported by User:Acroterion (Result:Indef blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "in the section describing him as an incel, I mentioned his significance in the foundation of the incel ideology, and even directly quoted a source from the BBC"
 * 2)  "mentioned an objective fact"
 * 3)  "mentioned the significance of his leadership to the incel movement"
 * 4)  "mentioned an important nickname"
 * 5)  "it is extremely important in the wider context of things....please leave it alone"
 * 6)  "Lightoil, if you don't know what you are doing, then please don't do anything....this addition is true, and important, and sourced by the BBC"
 * 1)  "Lightoil, if you don't know what you are doing, then please don't do anything....this addition is true, and important, and sourced by the BBC"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."
 * 2)   "/* March 2023 */ r"
 * 3)   "/* March 2023 */ add"
 * 4)   "add"
 * 5)   "/* March 2023 */ talkpage is obligatory"
 * 6)   "/* March 2023 */ comment"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* he's widely considered the founding father of the modern incel ideology */ r"

Comments:

JoeyCoffin appears to be devoted to increasing and aggrandizing Elliot Rodger's prominence in the article, and establishing the term "King of the Incels" in the article. Apart from the sheer creepiness of that determination to describe the murderer as a hero, the article is about the murders, not Rodgers or his influence. The material would be better used, neutrally, at Incel. JoeyCoffin has indicated that they intend to persist until the additions stick.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I get it, you don't like me.
 * but I never ever described a murderer as a 'hero'....the term "King of the Incels" has been used by sources other than myself, such as Dr. Todd Grande, I was just quoting him....like people also had him called "The Supreme Gentleman" under the 'other names' category, and it wasn't removed. JoeyCoffin (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Less than two dozen edits, all but two clearly pushing an agenda. Textbook NOTHERE.  Indeffed.  Courcelles (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was about to block as a sock of but Courcelles had already blocked; however, I did tag the user. Ironically, the user has used Special:contributions/2A00:23C4:EA8B:7601:0:0:0:0/64 for a fairly long time now to evade their block. I just blocked the range for 6 months, but the last admin to block the range was .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That explains why it caught my eye, I should have gone back and looked more closely at the editing history for that article.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:137.158.132.169 reported by User:331dot (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It was a fabricated story which she was latter absolved of after an independent panel was selected. Her opponents claimed that she had a black book which she refuted saying that she does not remember when she last used a pen or paper. It was later found out that the ombud wanted an unethical favor which Phakeng refuted and that is when the beef started."
 * 2)  "That is not true, Phakeng wanted to stay at the institution and the chair of council threatened her by stating that if she stays she would get fired and it was in her best interest to take an early retirement."
 * 3)  "The information that was removed was false and had malicious intentions. The targeted individual had been a victim of racism and sexism at the institution she was working at and it is clearly evident that the racists are still going on with their smear campaign."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Mamokgethi Phakeng."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mamokgethi Phakeng."

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

Comments:

Reporting as I'm involved. User reverting simply based on their own information and offering no reliable sources. As I was opening a discussion on the talk page the user reverted again, so here I am. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a clear a conflict of interest here; this is the third IP registered to UCT which has been removing content pertaining to their university.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for 2 weeks; there have been recent disruptive edits from other IPs. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Backwardsnap reported by User:2405:201:800B:684F:6447:8317:DFA7:1A0 (Result: Page semi-protected for a week; both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

The is constandly changing GDP figures without providing any source. The actual GDP data taken from IMF source. Please block this user permanently and semi-protect this article.--2405:201:800B:684F:6447:8317:DFA7:1A0 (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * for a week by Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * reporting user's /64 is covered as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:178.214.240.0/20 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Page protected for three days; IP and warring editor blocked for a week)
Pages:
 * ("article 1")
 * ("article 2")

User being reported:

Other involved user:

Previous version reverted to: article 1, article 2

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none; only on user talk page)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User:178.214.244.71, User:Fromiadrian

Comments: Hi, I am just an outside party that just came across this edit war while patrolling recent changes, involving User:178.214.244.71 and User:Fromiadrian. At first I was going to make this report centred around both users, but then a deeper looking through the history of the pages revealed that this same IP user has been involved with different other parties in the past as well, involving almost the same edits. I took a quick look at the content this user was repeatedly trying to add, and to my eye I could not verify it with the source provided, while the other half of their edit lacked a source at all.

AP 499D25 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think anon's statement is hoax. Fromiadrian (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * for three days by . Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * (not the reporter, a third party) for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1008:B070:F046:4510:2548:8402:37E1 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
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:
 * 1)   "/* Being owned by Disney is not the same as being a Disney Princess */ new section"

Comments:

This IP is continually adding speculation on whether Anya is a Disney princess or not, and has blanked attempts to discuss it on the talk page. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 19:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire range. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:5.151.21.128 reported by User:SamX (Result: Blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1144821354 by SamX (talk) I apologize for earlier wanton deletion but this time It's simply a factual statement easily varifiable by using ctrl-F"
 * 2)  "/* China */Some contexts, if you insist."
 * 3)  "/* China */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1144816037 by Jguglielmin (talk)Not if you try Ctrl-F"
 * 5)  "While no doubt violation of human rights, the UN report never once used the term "genocide" (https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf)."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1144816037 by Jguglielmin (talk)Not if you try Ctrl-F"
 * 2)  "While no doubt violation of human rights, the UN report never once used the term "genocide" (https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf)."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

POV pushing on Uyghur genocide, behavior suggests WP:NOTHERE. Previously warned by (diff) &mdash; SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 19:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the ping, . Looking at their talk page history, I'd indefinitely block if this was a registered user.
 * . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Danju87 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1144812687 by M.Bitton (talk) Attemps to tarnish the reputation of berbers is unacceptable without correct sources to do so. Please mention reliable sources for undoing the change"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1144809872 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1144789948 by Blueshiftofdeath (talk) the word's origin is greek"
 * 4)  "/* Name */The word Berber comes from ancient greek word Barbaros meaning foreigner. Arabic is a language develeped thousands of years after ancient greek and derived the word Barbaroi (not barbaros) from greek directly."
 * 5)  "/* Groups */This Wikipedia page map shows chaoui people in Tunisia"
 * 6)  "/* Antiquity */"
 * 7)  "/* Antiquity */"
 * 8)  "The word barbaros in greek means foreign people. The word barbaraoi in greek means barbarians. In the same way in english the words lamb and lame are only different in one letter but their meaning is very far from each other. This is a common theme in any language if one has passed secondary school education that is."
 * 9)  "Barbaros and barbaroi in greek are two different words exactly how Lame and lamb are different in emglish due to a difference of one letter. Refer to a greek dictionary for further information"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1144779303 by Dhtwiki (talk), if you claim the existence of grammatical mistakes then you refuse to correct them for the wikipedia community base then why are you even here ? You don't contribute much towards anything."
 * 11)  "Undid revision 1144776418 by Dhtwiki (talk), text is clean and well sourced from a University article from Texas University, in case of grammatical mistakes correct the "grammatical mistakes" you see manually, do not undo edit"
 * 12)  "This modification uses Greek and Amazigh origins of words. Please do not delete modification"
 * 13)  "/* Name */"
 * 14)  "origin of name berber comes from the Greek word Barbaros mwaning foreign people"
 * 15)  "Added the meaning of Amazigh"
 * 1)  "/* Name */"
 * 2)  "origin of name berber comes from the Greek word Barbaros mwaning foreign people"
 * 3)  "Added the meaning of Amazigh"
 * 1)  "Added the meaning of Amazigh"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* March 2023 */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* March 2023 */ Reply"

Comments:
 * I've blocked the user for one week, but I'm concerned about their other edits. From what I could see - and I know next to nothing about the subject area - the user is adding unencyclopedic, unsourced material to multiple articles. The only reason I didn't revert was because I felt I would not have been able to take administrative action. Hopefully, editors like, who know more about the subject, will clean up after the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will check their other edits. M.Bitton (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Saxouri reported by User:Novem Linguae (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1144831157 by Novem Linguae (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1144830552 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1144747825 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1144747825 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has 53 contributions on various articles, and 39 have been reverted. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * for the moment, though I suspect this will have to be revisited... Salvio giuliano 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Cherfan 15!! reported by User:QuietHere (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:13, January 19, 2023 "Artist's Twitter account =/= independent source + "Work'n" is not the same as saying that an album is coming or when."
 * 2) 10:35, January 22, 2023 "1. "Working on an album" doesn't mean it'll even get finished, let alone be released this year. She hasn't said anything about a release date so we can't assume one. And even if she had said it would release this year, there's no independent coverage of an upcoming Cher album so we couldn't add it anyway because her tweet alone doesn't prove notability. Any artist can tweet about an album's existence, but that doesn't mean we give every artist a listing."
 * 3)  "The citation might be twitter, but Cher said shes working on albums in the video so it’s true. Plz watch vid before deleting this or editing it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned multiple times previously in reverts and their talk page that social media sources are not reliable and sources that do not mention a release date are invalid, and yet has continued to re-add the entry. Disruptive WP:SPA editor. QuietHere (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

User:SivaGoth reported by User:Giraffer (Result: Partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1145024859 by BubbaJoe123456 (talk) Please stop adding deletion template as the person is notable and has previously been through this process."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1145024801 by Glane23 (talk) Please don't remove balancing information that comes from the exact same linked article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1145024185 by Glane23 (talk) reverted to return to previous less-biased and more sourced state."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1145023929 by Giraffer (talk) was previously flagged for deletion and considered notable. This seems vidictive and not information based."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1145023929 by Giraffer (talk) was previously flagged for deletion and considered notable. This seems vidictive and not information based."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User repeatedly removing the standard notice on an article for a recently-filed AfD. A warning was issued after three reverts but they have continued since. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This user keeps reverting improvements and has escalated to marking for deletion, abusing the system. SivaGoth (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, @SivaGoth: how is nominating an article for deletion "abusing the system"? Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * When someone is constantly being rebuffed in their vandalism of an updated article, prompting for deletion is a clear and obvious escalation, abusing the system to remove an article they might be challenged for control of. SivaGoth (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "constantly being rebuffed"? The user who sent the article to AfD made one prior edit, and it wasn't contested when they nominated the article for deletion. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 21:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Partial blocked from James Desborough (game designer) indefinitely with a warning that disruption elsewhere will result in a site-wide block. The comments above and here don't bode well.-- Ponyo bons mots 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Allowing vandalism of articles doesn't bode well. Updating and removing bias from articles is hardly disruption, deleting those changes without reason - however - is. SivaGoth (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * , hope you don't mind, but I've converted the partial block to a sitewide indefinite block for the user's comments after your warning. I imagine TPA will have to be revoked soon, but I can wait and see for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You're always welcome to pick up my slack. -- Ponyo bons mots 22:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Gamingmaster83 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 15:50, 16 March 2023 UTC

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:44, 17 March 2023 UTC
 * 2) 04:58, 17 March 2023 UTC
 * 3) 05:40, 17 March 2023 UTC
 * 4) 05:48, 17 March 2023 UTC
 * 5) 05:50, 17 March 2023 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warnings on user talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

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

Comments:

Hi, I am an outside, uninvolved party that just came across this edit war involving this user, and two other parties User:Soetermans and User:OceanHok on the other side. This edit war was about a hidden note (HTML comment) added to an infobox item, which is not visible when reading the article normally at all, so the removal of the hidden comment by this user seems pointless to me. Nonetheless, User:Gamingmaster83 clearly broke 3RR here. On top of that, a look at the edit history of the article reveals that this user has been disruptive the previous few days as well, involving other edits. Some of the warnings and comments on their talk page suggest this user has been attacking other editors as well.

AP 499D25 (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have not been attacking anybody I agree things got heated But I'm fine now So have a good day. Gamingmaster83 (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * With this edit summary you responded with a single 'middle finger' emoji, 🖕. In comment, you said "I'll stop insulting people when people stop being idiots". That's two personal attacks. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Their latest replies seem to indicate they do not understand what is wrong with their reaction, let alone show their intent to change their attitude.
 * "Look I'm sorry About all this I thought about it and you have a point But I have an message Tell him people not to edit tell us confirmed Isn't very nice."
 * "Besides isn't that what you all are doing."
 * "It's interesting how people lash out at someone who is just trying to point something out."
 * Gamingmaster83 has been repeatedly told what's wrong, has been issued several warnings and do not seem to understand that what they did is wrong. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have let you off with just a 3RR warning, but your previous history of disruptive edits on the Suicide Squad article on 12-14 March, together with edit summaries like "Undone Because there's a thing called freedom People can put on here whatever they want" seem a bit concerning to me. You did make a sort of personal attack in this previous edit, middle finger emoji in the edit summary. "I can do this all day buddy" suggests you are here to blatantly edit disruptively and edit war with other editors.
 * If you have read through and understand WP:Consensus and the policy about edit warring, and acknowledge to us you won't edit disruptively like that again, we may let you off on this one. AP 499D25 (talk) 08:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User: Alex Emeritus reported by User: NextEditor123 (Result: Declined as malformed)
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:

Comments:

Alex Emeritus causes edit warring in article about Lionel Messi by repeatedly undo previous edits and corrections to prove that he won 2005 Supercopa de España in which he was not called up. The user also put unreliable non-primary sources for the own re-edits and relies on football club's websites which are not independent sources for players' honours. NextEditor123 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I had briefly blocked the reporting editor, whom I have previously blocked for edit warring, and partially blocked the reported editor ... only as I was leaving notice to him did I discover that the reporting editor had never bothered to leave any notice to the reported editor (as not noted above). So, that's a decline, but as my earlier action suggests I felt some sanctions would have been necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum I would suggest the easiest and best way to resolve this is to make an endnote to the honor noting that the team considers it an honor although he contributed in no way to earning it. And/or taking it up to the football project talk page or some other dispute resolution forum. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Ccaakk reported by User:Moxy (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Adding factual term Genocide in leu of cultural assimilation."
 * 2)  "/* History */"
 * 3)  "/* Comparison to Jesuits in Canada */"
 * 4)  "/* Purpose */Genocide replaced."
 * 5)  "/* Comparison to Jesuits in Canada */"
 * 6)  "/* History */"
 * 7)  "/* History */Genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children..."
 * 8)  "/* Purpose */Genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children..."
 * 9)  "/* Comparison to Jesuits in Canada */"
 * 10)  "/* Failed assimilation */"
 * 11)  "/* Purpose */"
 * 12)  "/* Purpose */"
 * 1)  "/* History */Genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children..."
 * 2)  "/* Purpose */Genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children..."
 * 3)  "/* Comparison to Jesuits in Canada */"
 * 4)  "/* Failed assimilation */"
 * 5)  "/* Purpose */"
 * 6)  "/* Purpose */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Need to come to talk pages first */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

We have a series of advocacy and rightimg great wrong edits across multiple pages. Simply need Editor to come and discuss the changes and bring forth sources Moxy - 23:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The use of the word GENOCIDE in relation to what happened to the Native Americans during colonization of the USA is accurate and factual. Those who have questioned my use of the word have clearly not read through each source and link cited on this page already, these sources prove the genocide against the Native Americans in the United States and the fact this is being debated proves the point further. Genocide and cultural assimilation are the exact same thing. “successive U.S. administrations have not only wiped out a large number of American Indians, but also, through systematic policy design and bullying acts of cultural suppression, thrown them into an irreversible, difficult situation. The indigenous culture was fundamentally crushed, and the inter-generational inheritance of indigenous lives and spirits was under severe threats. The slaughter, forced relocation, cultural assimilation and unjust treatment the United States committed against American Indians have constituted de facto genocides. These acts fully match the definition of genocide in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and have continued for hundreds of years to this day.” Genocide: any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. These are not my opinions, these are facts. Two users messaged me because they believed I used the word too much and agreed with the use of the word just not the repetitive use of it, how is that a valid argument? Ccaakk (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Օֆելյա Հակոբյան reported by User:Yerevantsi (Result: Semi-protected 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:

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

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

Comments: This user stubbornly refuses to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and instead has engaged in disruptive behavior. In total, within a month, they have changed "Russian painter" to "Armenian painter" on ten occasions without any discussion.


 * There is a total of 10 reverts since 3 March (all without edit summaries) to restore this edit. The article was full protected from 9 March to 17 March as a result. They have been reverted by multiple editors but there is no sign that they intend to stop edit warring and discuss their change. I gave them a warning for EW on 5 March in fact . Mellk (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * for a week by Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That does not address the reported user's disruptive behavior. <b style="color: red;">Ե</b> րևանցի talk 09:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)