Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive467

User:The Kip reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  We don't post ceremonial commissionings here of any ship, let alone a middle power.
 * 2)  Again, we don't post these
 * 3)  please stop adding this when it’s been removed multiple times
 * Seems to be notable, given that aircraft carriers can define a navy's "power" level, and we've posted commissionings of aircraft carriers before.
 * 1)  We haven't in recent memory, no - I went back and checked the current events portals for the commissioning dates of the US' Gerald R. Ford and UK's QEII, neither of which were posted. If those, part of arguably the world's two most powerful navies, aren't posted, neither should a middle power's.

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

Comments:

I was not initially involved in this dispute, with only the edit prior to the 4th revert being made by myself, while the previous three edits were made by IP's from Poland. I re-added the entry, given that the justifcation for the removal referred to un-documented/non-existent consensus.

I made this report as I note that The Kip tried to have the page protected, after the third revert, in an attempt to stop the IP re-adding the entry. This did not seem to be a reasonable course of action, given this was a content dispute. The responding admin has noted the same and denied the request.

Carter00000 (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I personally believe being reported for edit-warring is absurd here, especially when I’m the one operating on precedence, but all I’ll say is what’s I’ve already stated repeatedly in edit summaries: we don’t post these, and it’s not an “undocumented/non-existent consensus.” We didn’t post the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford, nor did we post the HMS Queen Elizabeth; the only commissioning I can find is that of the Shandong, which, although I disagree with, was at least somewhat more notable for being the first true carrier indigenously designed and built by what’s become a major world power. Anadolu may be indigenously-built, but it’s neither a true aircraft carrier (rather, an amphibious assault ship/LHD), nor is it indigenously-designed (as it’s built to the same design as the Juan Carlos I and the Australian Canberra-class). Ergo, it isn’t notable enough to add to ongoing, despite what numerous unregistered IPs may believe. The Kip (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The last revert was early this morning my time and I just had supper. So I’m calling this over and, IMO, no reasonable admin would block at this point, so closing with no judgement as to whether a block could have been warranted much earlier.  Courcelles (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It was once again re-added. I'm adding a note to the talk page as to why it should not be included, tagging the IP who has most recently done so, and replacing it with a hidden note directing any future editors to the talk page. The Kip (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note again that there is no PAG or written consensus which states that such entries may not be added to the Portal. You have asserted both here and on the portal itself that "we don't post these", which is untrue. As you yourself have noted, other commissioning's of ships have been posted before. What is stated in the guidelines when posting a entry is "stories added to the main portal page should be of international interest" which this entry meets given the coverage in RS's, so the inclusion of the entry should be judged on its own merits per that standard. It does not justify reverting a entry four times in a day, then a fifth time on the second day, or attempting to get all IP's blocked from editing the page over a content dispute. Carter00000 (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not "other ships" plural, a single other ship, which had (questionably) unusual notability beyond simply being commissioned. Otherwise, these simply aren't posted, which I've provided multiple examples of by this point. In addition to the two examples listed above, we didn't post either instance of the aforementioned Canberra-class, the INS Vikrant (which itself was India's first indigenously designed and built carrier), or the Japanese Izumo-class. Additionally, I'd make an argument ship commissionings are rarely of international interest, especially in this case when it's not a fleet carrier nor an original design. This is only particularly notable to Turkey, and perhaps NATO member states to a very slight degree. The Kip (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I note that you have again expressed here today  that IP'S should be prevented from editing pages, despite edits being in good faith, simply because you don't agree with them (ie. a content dispute), after you were told this was inappropriate yesterday.
 * As for the standings page, it gets extremely annoying when the table is updated piecemeal, often skipping everything but wins/losses and playoff status, just to be "first" on something, especially when policy is to wait for updates until the end of the day's slate; otherwise, it becomes considerable more difficult to consistently put everything together.. This has been a recurring issue with IPs there all year. The Kip (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

User:TruthfulCooper reported by User:Kuru (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Prior edit

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:07
 * 2) 01:52
 * 3) 02:03
 * 4) 02:09

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:05

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: On going discussion of asinine edits; user has not graced the page with his presence

Comments:

Simple edit war and 3RR violation over including Elon's latest joke into the article. Warning was ignored. I've participated in the article's talk page, so uncomfortable blocking. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Given past conduct and present IDHT conduct, this is a full block.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Nestofbirdnests reported by User:Fdom5997 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timucua_language&direction=prev&oldid=1149718794

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timucua_language&diff=prev&oldid=1149718794&diffmode=source
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timucua_language&diff=next&oldid=1149721655&diffmode=source
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timucua_language&diff=next&oldid=1149722371&diffmode=source
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timucua_language&diff=next&oldid=1149722617&diffmode=source

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timucua_language, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fdom5997#Your_clearly_prevalent_conflict-of-interest_edits

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANestofbirdnests&diff=prev&oldid=1149727365&diffmode=source

Comments:


 * The reported user has only, as best as I can tell, reverted twice (although the first edit is likely a revert). By contrast, the reporting editor has reverted three times—with the fourth diff they provided being their third revert. —C.Fred (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * . User's ill motives revealed when they started declaring that math is fake . Obvious battleground mentality and not here to contribute positively. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Mureungdowon reported by User:Maddy from Celeste (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermanentLink/1148296789

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1149719168
 * 2) Special:Diff/1149793336
 * 3) Special:Diff/1149795772
 * 4) Special:Diff/1149797150

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User mentioned 3RR to someone else, clearly knows the rules.

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1149798940

Comments:

Contentious topics alert diff: Special:Diff/1123545463. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * is the other party in that edit war, and has reverted thrice so far. He has a previous block for edit warring. He had not been made aware of contentious topics policy. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m not blocking Jeff6045 at this point because they only made three reverts by my count. But I will notify them of CTOP. Courcelles (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, Madeline, you did that already. Courcelles (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Novalis69 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  " Undid revision 1149820655 by Tgeorgescu ((talk)) "User talk:Tgeorgescu" is not registered.Special:Contributions/User_talk:Tgeorgescu"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1149818684 by MrOllie (talk) There is no global account for "User talk:MrOllie"."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1149817559 by MrOllie (talk) Onus is on the one that disagrees."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT of User:Eklir, who also edit warred at the same article. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Eklir reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Indeffed as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1149816585 by Bon courage (talk) You can't undo a 3rd time without discussion or edit warring."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1149815599 by Bon courage (talk) You can't undo senior editors' edits without discussion."
 * 3)  "Borderlands medecine is mostly legal, confirmed quackery is not, nor would it be in any way promoted on any UNESCO heritage list. Confirmed quackery is illegal practice of medecine.."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Contentious topics"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT of User:Novalis69, who also edit warred at the same article. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Why SOCK or MEAT?
They have both edited Henri Wittmann, which is far from a popular article. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Eklir‎. I hear quacking (or several types). Bon courage (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

User:FreeStateCosmos reported by User:SchroCat (Result: 24 hours p-block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:45, 15 April 2023‎ (First edit: not edit warring; the rest are).
 * 2) 14:53, 15 April 2023
 * 3) 15:23, 15 April 2023
 * 4) 16:00, 15 April 2023
 * 5) 16:42, 15 April 2023
 * 6) 17:52, 15 April 2023‎ (This one was after this thread was opened and they were informed on their talk page about this being open.)

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:


 * 24 hours partial blocked. Maybe that will be enough. Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User:174.251.208.11 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Bridget Fonda."
 * 2)   "+ Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Three days of slow editwarring - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s enough slow moving nonsense coming into the page I think a nice long duration semi is best here. Courcelles (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User:OurRepublicFirst reported by User:BillHPike (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1150027309 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
 * 2)  "After reviewing many LHPS original documents and conducting interviews with former students, teachers, trustees, administrators and founding family members we corrected errors in the schools history."
 * 3)  "Edit of the history of the school to represent truth.   We represent a group of alumni, former trustees, administrators, and family members of the founders that wanted us to make changes to the Wikipedia page because the current version does not accurately represent the history of LHPS. We have researched the history and documents of the school and have also interviewed students, teachers, and administrators that were there at the schools founding and throughout the years."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Oops, I mistakenly thought this user was at the fourth revert when they have reverted three times. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Cassiopeiadragon reported by User:Mvqr (Result: Blocked Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

There is a bunch of suspect one-off accounts involved here, but Cassiopeiadragon is clearly over the edit warring threshold. Mvqr (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I edit real topics whose sources are safe and verified. Cassiopeiadragon (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * . Got rid of some spam accounts, and invoked the General Sanctions to indef ECP that page to stop this nonsense. Courcelles (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

User:GeSm99 reported by User:Snowmanonahoe (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1150190931/1150196117

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1150190931
 * 2) Special:Diff/1150196117
 * 3) Special:Diff/1150193698
 * 4) Special:Diff/1150192927
 * 5) Special:Diff/1150192130

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1150196361

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1150198487 Special:Diff/1150198646 Special:Diff/1150198744 Special:Diff/1150198797

Comments: I'm reporting this one user but I think page protection is more appropriate. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Holy hell, folks are edit warring to keep this in a 50 word BLP? That’s absurd, and the removal is entirely in line with WP:UNDUE.  Courcelles (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, but UNDUE isn't an exception to 3RR. In any case I ask that you protect the page if someone reverts you. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's fair enough. I guess getting myself involved in that edit war was unnecessary after all. e (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User: 38.49.194.167 (Result: No violation by Sportsfan 1234; IP blocked as a sock)
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)   "/* Sportsfan1234 */ Vandalism"

Comments:

Similar behavior displayed at Ice hockey at the 1972 Winter Olympics. Sportsfan1234 simply reverts references and citations with no explanation whatsoever; they also refuse to engage in a civil discussion. 38.49.194.167 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now blocked the IP as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Was-a-singin reported by User:FlightTime Phone (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Unbelievable."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1150198289 by FlightTime Phone (talk) Self-explanatory. There's no citations after the statement that Jane is her aunt, so why should this require a source?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Bridget Fonda."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Bridget Fonda."
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bridget Fonda."
 * 4)   "+ Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Newbie not getting it - FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 21:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The dispute begins and ends with you. I added a cousin to the infobox. You reverted it because it was "unsourced". I put it back with a source, and you're still making a fuss. Want more sources? Here:

https://news.artnet.com/market/celebrities-frieze-la-1466566

https://www.janefonda.com/2009/04/james-taylor-and-friends/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Was-a-singin (talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * for WP:BLP violations and edit-warring. Someone really should clean up the mess the user has made of various articles. Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Rupsengod reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: Pblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Picture"
 * 2)  "New main image"
 * 3)  "Main image"
 * 1)  "Picture"
 * 2)  "New main image"
 * 3)  "Main image"
 * 1)  "New main image"
 * 2)  "Main image"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "3rr"

Comments:

User has persistently added their preferred image to the article despite having been reverted by both me and due to not providing any rationale for the image change. On their talk page they have stated which is not a valid rationale whatsoever. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Given he uploaded the image, it looks like he wants a picture of his own cat on Wikipedia. — Czello (music) 16:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't know the editor uses the pronoun "he".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems likely. I've also removed a further image uploaded by the same user. Barry Wom (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a she, not very woke of you :v Rupsengod (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Pblocked from Maine Coon by Courcelles for 24h. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

User:DiGrande reported by User:Biruitorul (Result: Both users blocked from page for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments:
 * In January, this user started an utterly pedantic campaign to slightly alter one sentence in this article. I eventually came up with a compromise version, which he rejected on 12 April. I made another compromise the next day, also rejected, together with walls of text on the talk page. I suggested dispute resolution, currently underway here. DiGrande quickly ran out of patience with that process and restored his preferred version. He’s also been getting more incivil, e.g..
 * At any rate, while perhaps not breaching the letter of 3RR, it’s clear DiGrande intends to revert-war his way to victory in this inane dispute, and his disruptive behavior must be stopped. If you check his talk page, you will see it’s not his first brush with 3RR issues. — Biruitorul Talk 06:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * please, tell about how you left my second edit as the official version for 2 whole months and then just decided to change it back to your original version, with a half-assed argument "this seems resonable to assume."
 * I do suggest to anyone interested to check the whole thing and see I've acted in no way inapropriate durring this whole thing while the other person, you, did indicate bad-faith on multiple ocasions. Why would one who find something pedantic or not important and who puts so little effort in arguing his case, still be so worked-out about it. At the surfece level my version says less, why do you care so much about the word "targeted" to be included? Why change it back again and again if you think it's not important? DiGrande (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Administrators, please take note of DiGrande’s continuing incivility, his failure to acknowledge that I took his objections into account, and above all his intransigence and battleground mentality. The revert-warring is the issue, not the diversions he is raising. — Biruitorul Talk 09:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The taking into account of my objections above mentioned resulted in adding "seemingly" to his version with the comment "..." to clearly show off he is not taking the discussion seriously. I did notify the neutrality noticeboard and did seek a third opinion for the problem. And all this time Biruitorul was makimg it very clear that he is probably arguing in bad faith, as he stated he doesn't think there is a big issue. How am I not to get annoyed by such an atitued. Rightnow he is just trying to twist the situation. I will recount it all as best as I can: over 2 months ago, I come across the page, I check the sources to see if they say what they are sighted for, I notice a problem, I edit it. He reverts it by saying "not really," I give him an indept explanation on why so he let's the dit stick for 2 whole months, then just decides to revert it back and we get to what I've described above. I did not start this "conflict" and with all respect I did offer compromises myself after an unmotivated edit by biruitorul, I tried to find 3rd opinions. His solution seems to be to attack my person on this noticeboard with a really twisted account of events maybe get me banned or something and then he can keep his arbitrary edit. I might be wrong, but you all be the judges, look over the whole thing and see if I really acted impropally or didn't try to get to on an agreement on this one, it just that the other person who really just doesn't want a true compromise. Going back to his compromise solution, does that seem to you like a compromise? Also, the "wall of text mentioned above, is just the translation of the source for anyone interested in resolving the problem who doesn't speak romanian. DiGrande (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * from the article. You had discussion going on the talk page; you should have kept it there until you reached consensus Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Kingsif reported by User:Sol505000 (Result: Stale)
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:

Comments:

My version agrees with Help:IPA/Spanish, which it should per Manual of Style/Pronunciation (which they keep ignoring). I see no progress that can be made on my user talk page so let's resolve this here. Sol505000 (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

And now they're following me around on Wikipedia, doing the same in another article. Sol505000 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I made three edits, and the first was an amendment, not a reversion - so 3RR has not been broken. You can also see I gave a lengthy edit reason in that first edit, which said that I acknowledge IPA keys need to be agreed to but that 1. the part I was amending was perfectly acceptable in IPA-es and 2. human name pronunciations should not be forced to fit "standard expectations" of a language as they can be said pretty much however the subject wants. Indeed, IPA is typically only used on biographies when the name is not pronounced how expected.
 * What hasn't been linked in the evidence above is Sol505000's reverts of my reverts, none of which engaged with my edit reason or gave any further reason for why the user did not want to attempt discussion. Nor has the discussion I opened on Sol505000's talkpage after the first revert I made, been mentioned, which they similarly refused to engage with. The user believes they are right (and that asserting this is all that matters) even when the policy they linked does not mention anything on given names and even encourages dialectical variation; when I mentioned Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation, they removed the discussion I opened.
 * Edit conflict addition: if Sol505000 could read timestamps, they would see that the edit they claim is me stalking them was made an hour ago, indeed before I opened discussion on their talkpage (and 35 minutes before this report) - and I guess if they didn't see it then, they can only have found it now by actually stalking my edits. In their removal of the single edit I made on that article today, they again claim edit warring, which I feel is an attempt at intimidation by some kind of public shaming (I also believe it is inappropriate for an involved user to be making reverts, as they did in that action, while there is an ANI open).
 * In short, I haven't edit warred; it is Sol505000 who is shutting down any attempt to discuss the subject; it is Sol505000 who will not even respond to the reasoning I provided; and it is Sol505000 who insulted me for trying to expand on that reasoning anyway (edit: Twice.). Kingsif (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This whole post is pure trolling. You're saying stuff such as "You linked to Manual of Style/Pronunciation which does not mention human names." Give me a break. If you want to be treated seriously don't edit war and think of better arguments than that. I'm also not interested in debating policies with you or anyone else, if you have a problem with that MOS go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation and make your case there instead of shooting the messenger. You won't hear anything different: do not use Template:IPA-es for IPA transcriptions of Andalusian Spanish. It is not covered by the Help:IPA/Spanish guide (no, there's no ⟨h⟩ in it. If I can see it then you too can see it.) Sol505000 (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This has flamed out since yesterday. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Refer to AE)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Dispute began on Talk:Israel,.
 * Continued on Talk:History of Israel,
 * And now has spread to History of Israel (1948–present)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Blanked page and was rv’d.
 * 2) Tag for CSD and was declined. ,
 * 3) Finally they nominated the page for AfD.
 * They have clearly gone past 1RR and are edit warring to remove the content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:


 * Triggerhippie4 given CT notice after AfD nomination.
 * Regardless of the merits of the dispute, this behavior is unacceptable.  // Timothy :: talk  09:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not edit-warring. I removed the content once turning it to a redirect because it was against the RfC to create it. After being reverted, I'm not removing the content but created an AfD nomination. What's wrong with that? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You'll have to forgive other editors for not seeing your page-blanking as good faith. Unless you are encountering clear vandalism or a content emergency, there is little justification for page-blanking at all. See WP:PAGEBLANKING. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there’s something here worthy of examination, but that AE is the preferable venue to do that. Opinions? Courcelles (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And, yes, shockingly, this idea of AE still holds noting the first CTOP alert was yesterday. Courcelles (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hardly the first CTOP alert. There was also 2018 and 2012. They are CTOP aware. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a problem warranting those messages.
 * The 2012 one says "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem." The 2018 says "It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date."
 * The sender of the 2018 one is indefinitely blocked. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are alerts just to make sure you are aware, which you most certainly are. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment about the RfC mentioned above: The close states, "There seems to be a consensus that some sort of split should happen, but the proposed split did not have consensus." and was closed as No Consensus.Trying to paint this as a consensus rejection of creating a split (or as happened a WP:SUMMARY creation), is false.  // Timothy :: talk  11:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, quote what the RfC says from the start: "The result of the discussion: No Consensus to split to History of Israel (1948–present)." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To split an article, you have to actually remove the material, which hasn't happened here. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You already started doing that:, . Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A split is removing the whole section in question, leaving a summary, not pruning. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why creating a sub-article of an overly lengthy page if not to shorten the latter? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Triggerhippie4 is aware of the sanctions, having previously been notified and having previously filed at AE in the topic area (here). And yes, AE would be better suited to examine edit-warring across a range of articles, including months of edit-warring at Israel.  nableezy  - 14:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there was also a notification in 2022. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sent by you immediately after you started edit-warring at Israel:, , . Amazing. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * lol, you tried that argument at the AE you opened (and there is exactly one revert in that list of diffs). But again, the point of the notice is to make sure you are aware of the sanctions. And you are. So yes, this can be moved to AE, and yes you can (and should) be sanctioned at AE. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As Courcelles noted, this might better be hashed out at AE as I see no clear evidence that 1RR was broken (and this is more a debate about whether the article should exist than any content within it). Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Anonymous453434567 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1150236233 by MrOllie (talk) talk page and page history support this factual and important section"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1149634464 by MrOllie (talk) please stop vandalizing this page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnonymous453434567&diff=1149634513&oldid=1146803863&diffmode=source

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Wealthiest towns, ZIP Codes, etc. */ Reply"

Comments:

This is a long term edit warring report, I don't allege a 3RR violation. They've been slow motion edit warring about this over the last month or so, and are up to 8 reverts. They've stopped participating on the talk page and are claiming in edit summaries that the talk page supports their edits, but looking at the talk page you'll find 5 other editors (to their 1) in favor of removing this content. MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

User:37.163.0.75 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Warned both editors over civility)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Clarification (same problem as before, it looked like they were all on the same side)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1150218182 by M.Bitton (talk) True, and it's written right below, together with the fact that they were aided by the police. I'm reverting your edit because now it looks like the French and the FNL both carried attacks against the French Algerian authorities"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1150216842 by M.Bitton (talk) Guerrilla warfare and terrorism against civilians are not synonyms, it can include it but also can not"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1150215744 by M.Bitton (talk) The others are already described as terrorists. The FNL were terrorist murderers too"
 * 5)  "Better description"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Guerilla warfare */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Battle of Algiers (1956–1957)."
 * 3)   "/* Content removal */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP keeps disrupting the lead of the article and refuses to discuss any of it, despite multiple attempts at reaching out to them. The lead is now a mess after they misrepresented a source (stating that the police carried out a terrorist attack against the FLN, when in fact they targeted civilians in their sleep). M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead is now better than before. Spamming my talk page is not reaching out. Would you like to have a lead that says that the Pieds-Noirs, the police and the FNL were all together like friends against the French forces? Because that's what I fixed with my last edit. Or are you just pissed off that people committing acts of terrorism against civilians are described as terrorist? 37.163.0.75 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You obviously have a thing against the FLN (terrorist murderers too in you edit summary is a give away), but that's not a good reason to ignore the talk page, misrepresent a source and edit war over it. The fact that you found your way here after being reported means that you were ignoring the talk page on purpose. M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no misrepresentation, your edits were just very badly written. And you have accused me of removing sourced content even if that never happened. The FNL murdered civilians in acts of terrorism, so they are terrorist murderers. That's a fact, you liking it or not does not change anything. 37.163.0.75 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat: you obviously have a thing against the FLN (terrorist murderers too in you edit summary is a give away), but that's not a good reason to ignore the talk page, misrepresent a source and edit war over it. The fact that you found your way here after being reported means that you were ignoring the talk page on purpose. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Repeating worthless accusations will not make them any less worthless. I fixed your badly written edits and you are mad that I called a spade a spade. 37.163.0.75 (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * you ignored the various comments that were left on your talk page and edit warred over your POV. These are facts. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, you edit warred and misrepresented my edits here, considering the fact that I agreed to have the lead mention both sides' terrorist acts while you tried to avoid that because of your POV, accused me of what you were doing, removing sourced content, and then opened this discussion here after I fixed your terrible syntax that misrepresented the historical situation in an hilariously nonsensical way. 37.163.0.75 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of you're supposed to discuss your changes instead of edit warring over them don't you understand? The fact that you ignored the comments that were left on your talk and kept edit warring is what led you here. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What part of you're not supposed to misrepresent what happened don't you understand? Your comment accused me of removing sourced content, a thing that never happened.37.163.0.75 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * after ignoring the talk pages when it mattered, the IP is now resorting to personal attacks. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Said the one that was being snarky and aggressive from the first edit summary. Also calling my opinions "childish" because of disagreement. 37.163.0.75 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Everything that needed to be said has been said. Time to let the admins take care of this. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have, however, warned both editors due to the increasingly intemperate tone of their discussion, per above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I must stress that while they made personal comments about me, my comment was about their comments and not about them. M.Bitton (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

User:RaghuvendraRaghuwanshi reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

per the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 45, which ruled against having such lists)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  original version is restored
 * 2)  original version is restored
 * 3)  Undid revision 1150464372 by Adakiko (talk)
 * 4)  Undid revision 1146382580 by MN Shenoy (talk)
 * 5)  Undid revision 1140367863 by Yellow alligator (talk))

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * Following EW notice
 * The editor's PA reply stopped my interest in discussing further


 * →‎Edit warring notice: Reply)

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

Comments:

Also personal attacks: The basis for reverting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Archive 45 (also linked above)
 * 1) (mentioned above)

Adakiko (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Socking? edit by

Adakiko (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * by . Courcelles (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:5C7:C100:2520:1CBC:9F72:7BEB:1787 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: 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 to warnings on editor's talk page: User talk:2601:5C7:C100:2520:1CBC:9F72:7BEB:1787

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

Comments:

I put a EW warning on the editor's page as a matter of form, but it was preceded by 6 individual warnings about violating NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Editor responded with a threat to sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   00:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP is quite obviously evading their block (despite the disparate geolocations) using 2405:201:300F:6187:14F6:3DA:177:BFC7 Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Semiprotected for a while. Courcelles (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

User:75.133.102.28 reported by User:JlACEer (Result: Malformed (more like unformed) report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

24 edits in same day. Ignored notes. Ignoring warnings. — JlACEer ( talk ) 02:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And the reporter seems to have ignored instructions on how to fill these out. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Ash-Gaar reported by User:Bourenane Chahine (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S.-Japan_Alliance&oldid=prev&diff=1150776388
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S.-Japan_Alliance&oldid=prev&diff=1150791569
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S.-Japan_Alliance&oldid=prev&diff=1150996495
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S.-Japan_Alliance&oldid=prev&diff=1150996889

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:U.S.-Japan_Alliance: [diff]

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

Comments:

OPTIONAL: I think that an administrator need to steep in to resolve this dispute, i have answered his concern about my map, i have given him valid argument against his case, yet the user "Ash-Gaar" refuse to acknowledge my point, he doesn't seem to understood or accept that not everybody know where those those countries (The united states of america and japan) are situated in the map, the page U.S.-Japan Alliance have a map like the page of nato, the AUKUS the Collective Security Treaty Organization etc... each others those page have a map or multiple one that cover the area of those treaty of mutual defense, the page US-Japan Alliance is no exception, yet he insist on deleting it specifically, from the user "Bourenane Chahine"


 * Aside from this being a malformed report, I strongly suggest that OP reads WP:BOOMERANG. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 08:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * To any passing/closing administrator, OP has agreed to stop edit warring, so a boomerang block is likely not necessary. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Wikiedit4444444 reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1126566806

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Wikiedit4444444, initial edit so diff form is not easily available

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Link to related SPI report Sockpuppet investigations/Historyeditor44

Comments:


 * As an IP and under two separate accounts, the editor now known as Wikieditt44444444 has been repeatedly edit warring to remove sourced content, an edit contested by three different editors including myself (,, . While they have shown up on the talk page, they have ignored BRD and are continuing to edit war, while proffering arguments that are orthogonal to both the material at issue and Wikipedia policy. They've also repeatedly made personal attacks against me in their comments on the talk page. signed,Rosguill talk 21:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Tomruen reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Blocked 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "LBT Portal box doesn't belong" This is Tom's fifth revert, as he had already removed it earlier at  with a similar justification of "This isn't an LGBT page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1151092138 by Sideswipe9th (talk) stop that!" This revert reinstated copyvio text. This is the fourth revert.
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1151091635 by Sideswipe9th (talk) You don't have a right to undo my improving the article." This revert reinstated copyvio text. This is the third revert.
 * 4)  "No need for imaginary "consensus" when I'm just rearranging, not adding or subtracting" This is Tomruen's second revert.
 * 5)  "There's not reason to not have cirtics get top billing in introduction. A critics section allows people to read what the group stands for first, and see critics last. Last word is more powerful." This is Tomruen's first revert.
 * 6)  "Opinions by ideologues are unworthy for an intro paragraph"
 * 7)  "add critics section"
 * 1)  "add critics section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Contentious topic alert - gender and sexuality */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Women's Declaration International."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Women's Declaration International

Comments:

Note, I recognise that I am past WP:3RR myself. However for my last two reverts  I am claiming WP:3RRNO#5, as I was removing clear copyright violating content that has previously been revdelled on the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Also I recognise the article is currently in a weird state, with two copyvio revdel templates covering ranges that are not the current version, and exclude intervening edits that contain copyright violating text. I would attempt to fix these, however Tomruen has now twice undone my attempts at restoring the article to a version prior to the copyright violation before I was able to use Enterprisey's cv-revdel tool to appropriately tag the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As another editor has now prior to Tomruen's edits, I have now readded and corrected the cv-revdel template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The article was horribly nonneutral and confusing. I mainly reorganized it into sections, adding a critics section for clarity. I only started reverted reverting because my reorganization were being removed. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My version is more neutral and easier to read, but Sideswipe9th has other ideas and seems to need to control the article, reverted again.  Tom Ruen (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that the diff that Tom has linked to in the above reply, which restored the version prior to Tom's edits, is by another editor, not myself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Partially blocked from the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:43.249.196.218 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodlands_Church&diff=prev&oldid=1151148590

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Types_of_lamp&diff=prev&oldid=1151147993

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banker%27s_lamp&diff=prev&oldid=1151147572

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodlands_Church&diff=prev&oldid=1151147467

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:43.249.196.218&diff=prev&oldid=1151147190

Comments:

Harassing other users in edit summaries as well. Equine-man (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Has also switch IP addresses and exhibits same behaviour there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/103.21.175.112
 * Am real lucky that my ISP switched it tolnight so I can try and beat a bit of sence into WP!!! 103.21.175.112 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You would as well if you were fustrated by the poor editing decisions. 43.249.196.218 (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You say you have thousands of edits (1), yet you don't know what a stub is? Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 07:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually over 100,000 logged in edits. I know all about stub articles. 43.249.196.218 (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide us with your logged in username. Equine-man (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-. What sort of fool do you tink I am! 103.21.175.112 (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:STUB says "Be bold in removing stub tags that are clearly no longer applicable. ". 103.21.175.112 (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Crystal-clear 3RR violation on Category:Types of lamp. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  08:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Mostly for the attacks. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:103.50.20.132 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:
 * Siteblocked for intentional disruption.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Gaura79 reported by User:Editorkamran (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop edit warring and discuss instead"
 * 2)  "Rvv to the 24 Feb version before edits warring has started. Let's reach consensus and then add material to the article"
 * 3)  "Reverted to pre-war version of the article. Consensus should be reached first"
 * 4)  "This is also irrelevant and not supported by good quality RS. Bhaktivedanta said many things, but here should be cited only those views with have been properly analysed in RS"

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

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

Comments:

Edit warring with his whitewashed content removals even after warning. Editorkamran (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Zoroastryan reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added media format: TV shows"
 * 2)  "Re-added deleted edit"
 * 3)  "Re-added another example of the use of this meme in popular media after it was removed for seemingly no reason. View reference video, the quote is clearly used."
 * 4)  "Added an example of the meme being used in Futurama, with reference video as evidence"
 * 5)  "/* Mentions in media */Added an example of the meme being used in Futurama."
 * 1)  "/* Mentions in media */Added an example of the meme being used in Futurama."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on All your base are belong to us."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * started a discussion on my talk page, I replied, but before I finished it they already reinstated their edit once more.

Comments:

New user keeps on adding WP:OR on a meme mentioned in a TV show. I'm already at 3RR, I apologize. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Both users have reverted 3 times - neither has violated 3RR. I'm more concerned with 's comments on 's Talk page, which are not civil.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Who are you, did Soetermans call backup or something haha. The comments are rude but the man deserves it for his own attitude on my talk page. Zoroastryan (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the response I was looking for. I've blocked the user for WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:TheBoysLH reported by User:Nikkimaria (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (note also personal attacks in edit summaries)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * above report is so very one sided, proving wikipedia is consored "encyclopedia" i am only reporting the truth, the other party started war editting, vandalizing correct oliver hardy info, he is going against what is given and i provided sources for all my edits many times... — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBoysLH (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MarnetteD it's clear this "contributior" has long history problem of same pattern of idiotic reverts...
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:FlameCelestial reported by User:LVTW2 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Moon_Lake&diff=prev&oldid=1151184447 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Moon_Lake&diff=prev&oldid=1150650596 3.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Moon_Lake&diff=prev&oldid=1149669970 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FlameCelestial&oldid=1151190441 "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sun Moon Lake." Warning issued by LVTW2 Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Comments:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun_Moon_Lake&diff=prev&oldid=1150774902

User is currently engaged in an edit war on the Sun Moon Lake, and also performing disruptive edits in other different pages which closely related to Taiwan, against longstanding consensus in Wikipedia. LVTW2 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asia-Pacific&diff=prev&oldid=1151186231
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_band&diff=prev&oldid=1151185780
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151185385
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matsu&diff=prev&oldid=1151184985
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osmanthus_fragrans&diff=prev&oldid=1150825494
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osmanthus_fragrans&diff=prev&oldid=1150650920
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osmanthus_fragrans&diff=prev&oldid=1148992474
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Osmanthus_fragrans&diff=prev&oldid=1137574914
 * Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:58.178.6.250 reported by User:Oblivy (Result: Blocked 2 years)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of Chinese Filipinos."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of Chinese Filipinos."

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

Comments:

Editor appears to be using two IPV6 socks: 2403:4800:24b5:ca01:788b:1535:d132:555e 2403:4800:24b5:ca01:d568:ef77:7538:c99b

These IPv6 editors have made changes in the past few days which were reverted for not complying with the list definition (requires cite, or wikilink to article supporting inclusion). IPv4 and IPv6 addresses also made edits close in time to Germans in the Philippines and Koreans in the Philippines Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * With this extensive a block record, there's really no reason to reach the edit-warring question as long as the edits are demonstratively disruptive. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also blocked the IPV6 range for both those IPs for a month (it does seem like other editors have used it constructively in the past). Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Note that there appears to be block evasion activity from 120.18.78.182 which is registered to Vodaphone NSW (geographically similar to this IP, same registrant as 120.18.189.237 which also made similar edits on same pages). Left a comment on the talk page about block evasion, nothing do do right now it seems. Oblivy (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked the range and there would be collateral damage. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Yes, in AMERICAN ENGLISH.  Please see any AMERICAN ENGLISH dictionary, or Google "improvize", where it will reject the word in favor of "improvise".  It is NOT one of the many words which differ from "s" to "z" between British English and American English. I have in my hand the Oxford American Dictionary, which lists "improvise" and not "improvize".  The same for the Doubleday Dict.  Or look at this from Grammarist "
 * 2)  "/* Early life and career */ "Improvise" is spelled with an "s" in American English.  Please consult a dictionary:"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1151255634 by Beyond My Ken (talk): Restore specific information which was replaced by generalized information"
 * 4)  "/* top */"
 * 5)  "/* top */ restore refs - so reason giben for deletion"
 * 6)  "/* top */ restore specific places"
 * 7)  "/* top */ restore marriage dates"
 * 8)  "Restored revision 1134254814 by Beyond My Ken (talk): A high pertage of this edit is detrimental to the article"
 * 1)  "/* top */ restore marriage dates"
 * 2)  "Restored revision 1134254814 by Beyond My Ken (talk): A high pertage of this edit is detrimental to the article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* David Gordon (choreographer) */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* David Gordon (choreographer) */ Please stop you own"
 * 3)   "/* David Gordon (choreographer) */ cmt"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* External links modified */  Delete per IABot (RfC)"

Comments:

Again, here we go, this guy just don't stop. See block log - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Consecutive edits are considered as a single edit, not multiple ones. FlightTime is editing warring over "improvize" being the proper American spelling. It is not.  In all varieties of English, the word is spelled "improvise".  See this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My reply from their talk: Whatever, it's not the spelling, it's the editwarring across the whole article today, and for years with you. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that while I obviously do not have OWNERSHIP of the article, I do have a legitimate stake in its STEWARDSHIP, having written 96.8% of the 67,653 byte article, and that FlightTime's edits in attempting to force the incorrect spelling "improvize" into the article, while not vandalism per se, was certainly not improving the article.And then there's FlightTime's animosity to me, sparked when he tried to nominate an unnecessary redirect of an image from Commons, and instead nominated the actual image. When I objected, he flipped me off, referring to me as "Einstein", as if it were I who had made the error, not them. . FlightTime clearly has a quick fuse, and it looks as if they hold grudges as well - which is really what this is about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I haven't made myself clear, You have an ownership mentality on all article you watch.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I watch 4,042 articles, so that is an absurd statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article's history, when multiple consecutive edits are counted as one, I had only two reverts before FlightTime began edit-warring to force "improvize" into the article. I now -- admittedly, have four reverts, so I guess I'm due for a sanction. I would argue, though, that FlightTime's ignoring multiple attempts to point them to the correct spelling (,, edit summary, edit summary) is a mitigating circumstance, and would ask for a mulligan on edit four.  I don't expect to get it, but I do FT's think forcing a misspelling into an article, whole ignoring please to simply look it up in a dictionary, is as close to "obvious vandalism" as one can get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your block log show s different pattern. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for the two of you to discuss your differences at Talk:David Gordon (choreographer) and leave the admins alone? Neither of you have a clean track record when it comes to edit warring, and this would be a really stupid argument to lengthen it over. – bradv  01:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm done. I've taken the article off my watchlist, but the editor has been disruptive for years.   -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Brad: I'd be more than happy to discuss any lingering problems with FlightTime on the article talk page. In fact, I'll go there now and start a discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect. While you're at it, start one at Talk:Valda Setterfield too. – bradv  01:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. The first is here, and I have notified FlightTime on their talk page . Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The second discussion is Talk:Valda Setterfield. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * – bradv  01:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm done. Don't expect me to chime in, I've spent more time than I care to on this user, because after all his blocks, he still doesn't learn. I have in 2019, when was his last block?  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , will you please explain why you tried so hard to add a spelling error to this article? Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was using a script and assumed it was correct. But that's not the real problem, this user has WP:OWN, and WP:BATTLEGROUND editing history and just kinda had enough of it. I'm done with this issue and user. Left a poke for the script author on my talk pointing to the issue.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , it is fine to use a script to assist you in correcting spelling errors, but you are fully responsible for the accuracy of your own edits. If you are not reasonably certain that your edit is correct, then please do not make it. Do not blame the script when you make a mistake. And when another editor points out quite clearly that you are wrong, pay attention. Do not let your clearly expressed enmity toward the other editor blind you to the fact that your spelling was wrong. The goal is a better encyclopedia with correct spelling, not conflicts among editors. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? Been here almost 15 years, thanks for the Wiki-preaching, I know all this stuff (I didn't blame the script, I just said I used it), but in real life, sometimes shit happens, good Admin response though. Happy editing,  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User:EndlessCoffee54 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) April 11, 16:47  Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
 * 2) April 23, 01:59  Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
 * 3) April 23, 02:03  Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
 * 4) April 23, 02:35  Restored "the cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley"
 * 5) April 23, 03:53  Restored "the cultural, economic, and political center of Silicon Valley"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:San_Jose,_California.

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

Comments: Back in March 2017, added the text saying San Jose "is the economic, cultural, and political center of Silicon Valley", but this was unsupported by cites. When it was challenged, EndlessCoffee54 added low quality citations in May 2020. Today's fourth revert shown above restores the same disputed text but with new citations. These cites are under challenge on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The original version of this page, before Binksternet began removing the line "cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley" last month, had this phrase in there for years, at least since 2017. I have been contributing to this page since 2012? and I still remember a version of it being there then. Binksternet's removal of this phrase was initially reverted by another editor (CristianoTomas, from what I remember) because it was a controversial change that he disagreed with. When this happens, the page typically stays at status quo per WP:QUO, which is a version of the page that contained "cultural, financial, and political center of Silicon Valley." The onus is on the person making the controversial change to head to the talk page. Yes, he has the ability to be bold and make the edit in the first place. But out of good faith, when more than one editor reverts that change repeatedly, as I and others did, Binksternet should have gone to the talk page to suggest his edits and have the conversation we are currently having now there. Not to keep reverting over the period of a month to get his preferred version.


 * As a reference point, two or so years ago, I altered the longstanding lede of the San Francisco article from "the" to "a" "cultural, commercial, and financial center of NorCal." I think Binksternet may have been the one who reverted me. Instead of disrespecting his choice, I went to the talk page and built consensus to make that change permanent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:San_Francisco/Archive_8#SF_Being_*the*_Political,_Cultural,_and_Economic_Center_of_NorCal). Binksternet did not do the same here, instead choosing to selectively revert the longstanding consensus over the course of a month+, even when repeatedly told in the edit history to come to the talk page. He also pursued no intermediate measures like messaging editors to work out a solution in lieu of going to the talk page, or by placing a citation notice on the article or the reference line so that others could add better sources, like the page has now. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that Binksternet also used incredibly crass language in some of his edits and in his message on my talk page, where he referred to the sources as "shitty." That's unprofessional behavior that shouldn't be aired on Wikipedia and doesn't contribute to any meaningful conversation, but instead serves to bully other editors into submission. He's also insinuated on the San Jose talk page that a book on Latino history in the US couldn't possibly have value as a source on Silicon Valley, where hundreds of thousands of Latinos work. I found this comment deeply insulting and to be frank, slightly racist in its tone. This is the kind of behavior that tracks with repeated reverts instead of coming to the talk page to discuss something in good faith after several long-time editors had disagreed with the changes. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this acknowledges your explicit violation of 3RR. Regarding who was supposed to go to the talk page, WP:ONUS could not be more clear about it: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You were seeking to include disputed content, so you should have started a talk page discussion about it. Binksternet (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You also violated 3RR, in spirit, if not explicitly by the letter of the policy. You've reverted the page to your preferred form 7-8 different times over the last month, when asked to come to the talk page to discuss. Your material was in dispute first. It was your onus to begin the talk page discussion. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments from an uninvolved editor:
 * I've just had a look at this, and it appears that the exact content that is being removed here, had previously been in the article for a long time, since at least January 2021. So if anything, the removal of it is the bold edit here.
 * However, as of now, multiple other editors have objected to EndlessCoffee54's restoration of that content, and not just Binksternet. Namely, Drmies (diff), and Amakuru (diff). Looking at the talk page, it doesn't look to me like the dispute is fully over yet, but this is where things are at right now. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  14:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you or someone you know be open to moderating a streamlined discussion on this so we can reach a compromise? I think what is in controversy is the "Silicon Valley" designation. I do think that some phrase about San Jose being the center of the Valley is necessary. Perhaps "Santa Clara Valley," or "South Bay" instead, since San Jose is the political seat of government and main component of its MSA. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The user complains at length above about the reporter, but none of those matter when he had so clearly violated 3RR within the space of an hour and a half as the reported diffs demonstrate. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User:FlameCelestial reported by User:LVTW2 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151371678 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151331802 3.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1151185385 4.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Central_Mountain_Range&diff=prev&oldid=1150650673 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning: Three-revert rule on Central Mountain Range." Warning issued by LVTW2 Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Comments: Repetitive vandalism and unconstructive edits conducted by one specific user (FlameCelestial) who evidently violates 3RR within 24 hours with frequent attempts to install personal political ideology into a pure geographical-related topic, which were against NPOV policy and the existing consensus. LVTW2 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FlameCelestial&diff=prev&oldid=1151378640
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FlameCelestial#April_2023_2


 * Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the second time that User:FlameCelestial has been reported here in two days, also by User:LVTW2. The first time can be found on this page scrolling a bit up (permalink). So I guess the next time this happens, some sort of action will definitely need to be taken that time. Also worth noting that as of now, both FlameCelestial and LVTW2 have been partially blocked from RPP/I for arguing with each other over there, despite warnings not to. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  04:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Wikiview2000 reported by User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverting vandalism from Richisups. Attempting to defame article subject. Election meddling. IP address sought from wiki with legal action pending against RichiSups. Richsups only article he edits is this one. Unhealthy obsession with article subject."
 * 2)  "Reverted vandalism. Undid revision 1151474219 by RichiSups (talk)"
 * 3)  "After speaking with Wikipedia admin and Hunter-Clarke defamatory comments removed which have been made by Richisups. Clear intention to meddle in current elections. Legal action will be taken against Richisups if he persists."
 * 4)  "Removed duplication"
 * 1)  "Removed duplication"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Making legal threats on Robin Hunter-Clarke."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Additionally making legal threats in at least two edit summaries 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely by as a suspected sockpuppet of . — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25   (talk)  10:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Orinavor reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not done, as the edits are clearly WP:NPOV vandalism.

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

Comments:


 * I indefinitely blocked the named account and blocked the IP /64 range for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Asdasf asdas reported by User:Awesome Aasim (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1151524280 by Awesome Aasim (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1151260005 by Awesome Aasim (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Windows 11 version history."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Version 22H2 */ Reply"

Comments:

Appears to be returning to edit-warring behaviors after getting off of a block from a month or so ago. Nonetheless, the reverting of good faith edits without providing an adequate summary or discussion is disruptive and needs to be appropriately handled.

I have done my best to promote appropriate discussion and to give opportunities for providing a proper revert summary, but those opportunities have not been taken. Despite warning them about 30 minutes after they did their second revert, I feel like it is appropriate to report for failing to heed the warnings leading up to their original block. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait @Bbb23 is this place for just 3RR issues? I have been trying to work out a compromise on the talk page of that article yet I am not getting any responses from either of the editors I @'d. Isn't it a must that a proper summary is given for reverting an edit if the reason isn't obvious? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 19:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor reverted only twice, so they didn't come close to violating 3RR. Edit summaries are always a good thing, but, unfortunately, in my view, they are not required.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Should I come back to a report if they are refusing to resolve the dispute? I want to know what other options there are if contacting the editor(s) in question does not work. I also want to make sure I don't unintentionally violate the edit warring policies myself. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Asdasf asdas was not the only editor who recently reverted you. However, I also noticed that you've attempted to discuss the dispute with both editors on the article Talk page and they haven't responded. My suggestion is you try other methods of dispute resolution if the Talk page doesn't attract any other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Acaunto reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Genuinely can't tell if this user is trolling or not. They quickly steered away from the subject on the talk page and started insulting me  and saying random stuff, even making what I suspect to be a stereotypical (arguably racist) joke of how Asians speak  (I highly doubt this user is Asian (specifically Japanese) as they randomly claim. ) They also randomly went to my talk page with this rude, but mostly bizarre message. EDIT: They are now WP:HOUNDING me on my talk page. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The reason I deleted the article is that there is no primary source for the content and it is not an article explaining the origins of the Kurds.This user continues to attack me personally without properly refuting my claim that the primary literature does not exist.I didn't just delete the post because I didn't like it.
 * However, this user continues to claim that the reason I deleted the article is because I hate the article.I apologized to this user several times because I wanted to have a proper discussion while we were very angry with each other due to the editing dispute.This user kept insulting me saying "don't pretend to be a victim".As you can see from my edit history, I'm not a big editr, I'm a frequent Wikipedia reader. I consider myself a newbie as I haven't done much editing myself.I understand that there is an article in the Wikipedia policy to be kind to newcomers. This user seems to be a long-time active user here. As a newcomer, I want to edit Wikipedia, but I find it difficult to be active on Wikipedia because these old users always undo my edits. I think other people will have the same difficulty.If I am sanctioned, I will understand that I have done something wrong. However, I apologized to the user several times in order to have a proper discussion, but this user is just trying to provoke me, criticize me, and report my mistakes. Acaunto (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Kurds are a people who exist in ancient texts. But this user says the Kurds suddenly appeared. This user doesn't seem to know much about Kurds. Then the editorial dispute should stop and be resolved through academic discussions, but this user is only trying to win the editorial dispute by provoking me from the beginning. Acaunto (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We were angry with each other over the editing dispute, but I apologized several times because I wanted to have a good discussion with this person. However, this user continues to talk about reports. It seems that he refuses to have any other conversation and only cares about winning the editorial dispute. Acaunto (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Mercy11 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: No violation, Protected 2 days)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Mercy11 is edit-warring on Jorge Otero Barreto undoing the consensus agreed since 2021 on the Talk Page surrounding the questionable claim that he was "the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War". Mztourist (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Protected for two days. There is no 3RR violation here, and looks like a pure content dispute. I've protected the article for 2 days, and urge all parties to discuss the changes on the talk page and come to a consensus so that no further edit warring takes place when the protection expires. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , I work full time and can only spare little time at WP during week days. With the current workweek just starting today, add to that the possible back and forth discussions dialogue to which I could only respond to once a day, your 2-day timeframe would be a burden on me. Would it be fair to ask you extend the article's protection till Saturday 4/29/2023? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

User:2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked for block evasion)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 7:04, 25 April 2023, "Undid revision 1151627213 by SHB2000"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1151625954 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1151624122 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
 * 3)  "Dr. Pellegrino has been my scientific mentor for over 20 years, and I noticed a great deal of errors and selective reporting on his page. Rather than feature the large volume of professional contributions he has made throughout the span of his career, his Wikipedia page features largely slanderous content, which has proven highly damaging to such a kind and genuine man's career for the past 13 years. Much of the information presented is entirely incorrect as well"

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

Comments:

Nomoskedasticity has been trolling Dr. Pellegrino's page for years and only permits a slanderous narrative on it, editing out ALL objective material, including Dr. Pellegrino's scientific contributions. Since when did Wikipedia become the equivalent of a Mug Shot website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 has a serf-declared COI (see their first and third edit) so they shouldn't be editing the article directly at all. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No I do not have a COI. I cited Dr. Pellegrino's published thesis in my research, proving he has a PhD and feel compelled to report on that and correct these errors. Do you consider Pellegrino's page objective? Reporting on "controversies" like negative book reviews and simple mistakes that were addressed and corrected, like trusting a source that exaggerated their war record? Whenever anyone as attempted to provide proof that Pellegrino earned his PhD, it is shut down. Just look at the revision history of the page and the number of individuals that attempted to edit it to be more objective. How would you feel if a Wikipedia page dedicated to you was nothing more than a catalog of every mistake, rectified or not, every criticism, every low point? The Pellegrino page is supposed to be about an author and documentary scientist. Why not simply report his publications and appearances? Why does the page need to be largely dedicated to slander? 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Dr. Pellegrino has many scientific accomplishments that can be reported as well - including being credited by Dr. Ballard for the Downblast theory in the international bestseller "Discovery of the Titanic" whom he sailed with in 1985 in the Pacific, being credited by Michael Crichton for inspiring his novel "Jurassic Park," having interviewed double survivors of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki which James Cameron is preparing to direct a movie about, furthering the theory that Santorini may have been Plato's Atlantis, among many others. Why has none of this been permitted to be reported on Pellegrino's page by Nomoskedasticity? Why is it always erased and labeled "promotional material" when in fact, it is factual, documented evidence of positive contributions? 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And for the record, Michael Parfit had sour grapes over being booted off an expedition in favor of Pellegrino, both of whom happened to be writers. There are plenty of positive reviews on Amazon and Goodreads for Pellegrino's books, so why are these not reported? Wikipedia isn't a book review site. It's also not a trial for a 13 year old mistake that was addressed and corrected in subsequent re-release of the Last Train book. And evidence exists of Pellegrino's PhD, but Wikipedia refuses to account for it. His thesis was literally published and is cited from the peer-reviewed journal Crustaceana. Look it up. Many others have cited it. If you do not wish to account for the fact that Pellegrino earned his PhD, then simply report that he earned a Bachelor's and Masters and leave the slander out of it. 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read Charles_R._Pellegrino? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that was the result of poor journalism with faulty research who is no longer employed by the New York Times. It's literally Fake News, like when the media reports from "anonymous sources" and we're expected to believe it. The "letter" this "journalist" received didn't even get the Chancellor's gender or name correct. I have screenshots of Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) admitting that Pellegrino earned his PhD on a page they had created for him to post his thesis when I requested it to be digitized from print, and the page was subsequently removed once negative press threatened to drag VUW into the media. They just wanted to cover their own behinds. The page literally said "Doctoral Degree Awarded" and I took screen shots of it. 2603:9001:6B02:657:3883:80D6:BC76:9595 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You may like to copy this discussion to the article's talk page, Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino, and continue it there.
 * , from editing the article directly only ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think we're dealing with block evasion by . Block extended to all pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

User:151.57.158.78 reported by User:1AmNobody24 (Result: Blocked 24h and page semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First revert
 * 2) Second revert
 * 3) Third revert
 * 4) Fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

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

Comments:

They copyied content from Syracuse, Sicily into the article and don't explain why. All they say is "wikipedia is not a blog" which doesn't matter at all in this case. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The page has also been semi-protected since other IP edit warriors seem interested in it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

User:RCB88 reported by User:Ecrusized (Result:Withdrawn )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Repetitive removal material citing a combination Wall Street Journal, CNN and BBC News while calling these sources biased. User keeps removing the said material despite restorations by multiple users. Ecrusized (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That is no more than 3 reverts, and you haven't yet participated in discussion about this in the talk page. Also, the onus is on you to gain consensus for the challenged content. RCB88 (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn As nominator I am withdrawing this notice since the user has stopped the edit warring. Ecrusized (talk) 08:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:PinocchiosPencilSharpener reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Sources are local newspaper for covering name of local park changed to recognize original name and the actual tv networks that broadcast programs in or about gig harbor. Please explain how these are not reliable enough sources. Undid revision 1151763685 by LilianaUwU (talk)"
 * 2)  "Provided new reference as SounderBruce did not find the first reference compelling enough"
 * 3)  "Modified media section to only include media references to Gig Harbor that are supported by references to the networks that air/produce the shows."
 * 4)  "Changes made include adding native name for Gig Harbor and corresponding reference (SounderBruce, you continue to delete this without any justification. There is no need to white wash history.) Re-added media section as it was deleted without justification."
 * 1)  "Changes made include adding native name for Gig Harbor and corresponding reference (SounderBruce, you continue to delete this without any justification. There is no need to white wash history.) Re-added media section as it was deleted without justification."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The usual stuff, a user constantly attempting to force their version on other people. Their sources are odd, too, such as a HGTV source for a HGTV show (that's primary), oxygen.com (can't really comment on this one, I'm unfamiliar with it) and a little-known local newspaper. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 04:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I should also add that this user has been edit warring at Joel McEntire (a BLP) as well as Interstate 90.  Sounder Bruce  04:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The edit warring isn't limited to Gig Harbor, Washington: there was also edit warring on Joel McEntire, where their diffs were removed for copyvio (thus I can't link them). Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to block me at this point as I have no interest in being part of this community anymore after seeing how the more experienced editors treat new users. The best explanation of why my edits continually being removed was offered in the formal complaint above by LilianaUwU despite me asking for reasons from LilianaUwU and SounderBruce multiple times. As for the local newspaper being little known, well duh, it’s local. Unfortunately, for local history and tidbits, local published sources are often the best and only source. Despite the paper being local, I provided two different articles from it supporting the inclusion of the native name of Gig Harbor on different edits to try to meet LilianaUwU and SounderBruce’s requirements and never received any clarity on why the source was unacceptable. Additionally, with regard to HGTV and Oxygen Network, the media references section was entirely deleted by SounderBruce because he felt it was not notable enough. What gives him the ability to make such determination? When I pushed back, he then claimed the sources were not legitimate enough. In response, I paired down the list to the media references that had original sources and didn’t rely on IMDB.com or other sources he found questionable. Now with original sources references so that I’m not relying on his unfit sources, LilianaUwU deletes it because she doesn’t like the new sources. Whole sections are being stripped from the Gig Harbor page, not it because they are incorrect, but because SounderBruce and LilianaUwU finds it dull or expect every article to be referenced by the New York Times and BBC. I 100% am guilty of warring because I refuse to accept modification by these editors without an actual explanation. Heck, it took multiple revisions of edit wars with SounderBruce for him to stop removing the CORRECT election results of our local representative. PinocchiosPencilSharpener (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Pazimzadeh (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:04, 25 April 2023/(Restored revision 1149675123 by Cannolis (talk): WP:MEDRS / profringe edits)‎
 * 2) 21:19, 25 April 2023‎/(Reverted 1 edit by 128.252.154.2 (talk): Sure I did - WP:MEDRS ./ profringe edit)
 * 3) 21:33, 25 April 2023‎/(Reverted 1 edit by Pazimzadeh (talk): Blatantly fails WP:MEDRS requirements)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrOllie&diff=prev&oldid=1151732827 Warning that I will report him if he doesn't justify his behavior. Technically, I was responding to his 3RR warning to me. Importantly, he is clearly aware of the 3 revisions rule.]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempts to specifically clarify why he thinks my edits are profringe, or violate WP:MEDRS

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

Comments:

The potential use of Vitamin C in cancer treatments has been highly controversial in the field ever since Linus Pauling’s advocation of it. Recent studies are finally unraveling the historical discrepancy between clinical studies, which has to do with the delivery method of the compound as well as other considerations. I edited the Linus Pauling article with up-to-date information regarding the potential for high-dose vitamin C to promote an immune response to cancer when combined with immunotherapy, which was not previously discussed in the article.

Specifically, in the introduction section I replaced the sentence: "Results from most clinical trials suggest that modest vitamin C supplementation alone or with other nutrients offers no benefit in the prevention of cancer.” with the sentence  "Although there is no consensus in the literature on whether IV high dose vitamin C can affect cancer treatment outcomes, recent pre-clinical mouse studies have revealed a beneficial effect when high dose IV vitamin C is combined with immunotherapy." and I cited a 2020 review-style article from the U.S. National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/ras/ras-central/blog/2020/yun-cantley-vitamin-c).  In the section “Medical research and vitamin C advocacy" I added: “Although there is no consensus in the literature on whether IV high dose vitamin C can affect cancer treatment outcomes, recent pre-clinical mouse studies have revealed a beneficial effect when high dose IV vitamin C is combined with immunotherapy.” And cited primary literature from a high-impact translational journal (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aay8707) I also added: "The effect was only observed in immunocompetent mice, suggesting that the anti-tumor effect depends in part on a functional immune system, rather than unspecific pro-oxidant activity”. In keeping with the WP:MEDRS guidelines, I noted that these results are pre-clinical, in mice. The National Cancer Institute summary is from 2020, which is more recent than the previous review (2015) and summarizes the debate and offers supports the limited claims that I have made. Excerpt: Now a growing number of preclinical studies are showing how high-dose vitamin C might benefit cancer patients. Importantly, these preclinical studies provide a clear rationale and potential biomarkers that may help personalize the therapeutic approach and identify patient populations that are likely to respond to high-dose vitamin C therapy.  I attempted to communicate with MrOllie on his talk page, including asking him multiple times for clarification how specifically I have violated the WP:MEDRS. MrOllie has not responded in good faith to my specific attempts to get clarification, instead repeating over and over that I have violated the guidelines. See talk page and diff statements (e.g. “profringe”, “Blatant violation of WP:MEDRS”, “argues with mainstream medical science.”) MrOllie reverted my changes within 3 minutes of me making them, asserting that the edits are “profringe.” However, he has not demonstrated comprehension of the edits and source material which I have cited, nor demonstrated the ability or willingness to engage in a frank discussion about this complex and controversial topic. He has threatened to block and report me and accused me of edit warring. I responded in kind. MrOllie has requested me not to post on his talk page again until I have filed a report.

Desired outcomes: 1)- If my edits do not violate WP:MEDRS, please re-instate the edits, or advise me on modifying them to be in full compliance. 2)- If deemed necessary, please add some clarity on WP:MEDRS guidelines, given that several Wikipedia articles appear to violate MrOllie’s interpretation of them (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interleukin_17#Role_in_psoriasis, see sentences with single references to mouse studies). 3)-	Please evaluate the competence of MrOllie to edit articles related to biology, or which require nuanced reading of the source material. Also, the potential need to issue him a warning, to add a timer to his ability to edit articles which relate to biology (giving him time to read the relevant material), or to issue him a topic ban.

I would like to clarify that the articles I have cited are not the only recent, well designed, pre-clinical studies in support of further clinical research for high dose Vitamin C. I am open to amending the article to reflect the other studies on the topic, such as the following: https://www.science.org/content/article/vitamin-c-kills-tumor-cells-hard-treat-mutation

Although it was not one of MrOllie’s claims, I understand that my edits may be more appropriate in a specialized article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C_megadosage or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C). However, MrOllie’s talk page comments make it seem like they are inappropriate anywhere on wikipedia. Please clarify. This is my first time filing a report on Wikipedia. Please excuse any syntax or other basic errors that I may have made during this process.Pazimzadeh (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pazimzadeh blocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:8807:A00:23:5568:8D8F:965C:8528 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked (/64 range) one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1151756141 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Guest */"
 * 3)  "/* Recurring */"
 * 4)  "/* Guest */"
 * 5)  "/* Recurring */"
 * 1)  "/* Recurring */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Refuses to stop and discuss. WP:IDHT. Amaury • 01:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There was no discussion about anything, only threats and accusations made in a very unprofessional manner. The definitions are directly from Wikipedia and has been noted to at least two Editors who would rather puff out their chest and attempt to flex rather than have a civilized conversation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guest_appearance
 * 2600:8807:A00:23:5568:8D8F:965C:8528 (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * IP address choose to ignore MOS:TVCAST and WP:TV. Guest appearance is irrelevant as it is a Wikipedia article, not a Wikipedia guideline nor policy. Also, keep in mind the article Guest appearance has a tag that says possibly contains original research. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   03:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Editor YoungForever continues to ignore common sense and think further than her nose. Editor YoungForever choose to be combative, rather than follow Wikipedia guidelines found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. 2600:8807:A00:23:5568:8D8F:965C:8528 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are baseless, I was not combative nor uncivil at any point. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   05:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Your responses resembled a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum. All because in your opinion, which is completely wrong, recognizable actors should not be listed as "Guest" when they meet every definition of the word except on an outdated policy that you hang your hat on because you apparently lack common sense and have a fragile ego. 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOPA — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   06:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion". My observation of your fragile ego is merely my interpretation of the cause of your poor attitude. 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, continuing personal attack is not a good look for you when you have nothing better say. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   06:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion". 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're breaking the spirit of the rule if not the letter of it. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  07:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOBITING 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * AP isn't biting you, and the obvious insincerity is making a block more likely. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Number 6 says to move on from it, I'd suggest you and AP take that advice. WP:SANCTIONGAME
 * 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: more personal attacks and incivility by this user can be found in their talk page, here are some diffs of that: 1,, ,  — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25   (talk)  09:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SANCTIONGAME 2600:8807:A00:23:D19D:BD53:E19A:17B4 (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: For more personal attacks and incivility by the IP address, please see Talk:Fantasy Island (2021 TV series) § Recurring, guest starring, and co-starring. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Edits are not vandalism, and not sharing your opinion is not incivility... 68.224.221.10 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked (/64 range) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:174.115.15.87 reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

My edits are being reverted despite being well referenced and being logical because Catherine assumes all of her husband's titles including his Scottish titles. She is not just the Duchess of Rothesay, she is Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles and Princess of Scotland. It doesn't have to be explicitly written anywhere because it is assumed by the fact that they are married. This was also on Queen Camilla's page but just removed by the same person complaining about me. This has been an ongoing and annoying issue of people vandalizing Catherine's page, trying to denigrate her entitlement to all of her husband's titles and erase information which to me shows a heavy bias against her by specific editors. This has included removing the jubilee medals that she earned from two of the Queen's jubilees in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.15.87 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Jdhillock reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Indefinite partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1151922695 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1151919591 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1151918896 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1151918045 by Discospinster (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Sherrilyn Kenyon."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Sherrilyn Kenyon."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "+ Connected contributor"

Comments: User is the article subject, declaration is on the talk page of the article. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * and a nother revert  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * from the Sherrilyn Kenyon article only, due to edit warring plus their asserted conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Dilbaggg reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1151646707 by LilianaUwU (talk) Go check WP:3RR 2022 editor before accusing people of WP:EW, seek a proper consensus than your personal views"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1151309311 by Soetermans (talk) 24 hour limit passed, seek consensus, 2 editors colluding acting as owners of an article based on their personal preference is not enough, seek WP:RfC please!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Has reverted multiple editors multiple times over the last week or so to force their own version against consensus of other editors, and has accused me of being a "GTA bureaucrat" (I guess some sort of cabal?) who forces revisions (I'm pretty sure I haven't edited a GTA article before). Has also explicitly mentioned "24 hour limit passed", as if the spirit of WP:3RR wasn't violated. Liliana UwU (talk / contributions) 09:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

It is not WP:EW as WP:3RR was not broken. I requested a proper consensus to the one who removed it, but they just remove the content based on personal consensus rather than just seek [{WP:RfC]] or WP:DR from a neutral party. Again I did not break WP:3RR in 24 hours so it can't b e edit war. A group of GTA artiocle editors act as bureaucatic owners and reverts WP:RS info by any other editors based purely on personal views without giving valid reason. Is it wrong the challenge that practice? I seemply requested a proper WP:RfC and a WP:Neutral view as they remnove WP:V contents based purely on personal preferences. @ soetermans, @User:TheDeviantPro and @ Liliana UwU are the three doing this practice. Anyway i will leave it to the admins to decide. They also vandalize my talk page readding talk page messages which i removed which isn't allowed according to this:.

These are three out of many examples of soetermans 's behavior and User:TheDeviantProUser:TheDeviantPro and  Liliana UwU  always seem to be back ups, like they alone dominate the GTA articles, just 3 out ofd many examples:,  and  as though only the three of them can decide and no one else can even if other editors comply with Wiki policy, but they just push the personal views.

Anyway now IO will leave it to admins to handle it, but I request a proper WP:RfC from neutral editors to decide the matter, and as I didn't break WP:3RR hope this does not count as WP:EW, if it does I apologise, and I won't edit again but I leave it to admins to decide, but the mansion and casino ownership are crucial WP:RS elements of the plot of the game and they simply keep removing it based on personal view and a collussion. I will leave it to admins to decide and whatever their decision I will accept. Peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Dilbaggg, as I informed you on your talk page you can still be blocked for edit warring without breaking 3RR. 3RR is a bright-line rule, but slower edit wars are still edit wars. In fact you saying things like 24 hour limit passed sounds like you're gaming the system. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR =/= WP:EW. An edit war can occur even if you haven't reverted 3 times in 24 hours. As Czello said right above me, you sound like you're gaming the system by saying stuff like 24 hour limit passed. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 10:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and do not accuse other people of meatpuppeting, as you did here. You are NOT helping your case. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 10:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @ Liliana UwU No I am not WP:GTS as I repeatedly requested a consensus the three of you keep refusing, so I complied with the WP:3RR policy. Anyway like I said its upto admins to decide, if they think I violated the policy then I accept whatever they decide, but you sucpiciously removed my talk page warn in "meating" style to  soetermans, which only he himself and admins can, if you are a regular editor I don't think you can, and thats also WP:GTS but if I am wrong on this case, I seek pardon, anyway I gave my points, I just simply want a proper WP:RfC as the mansion and casino ownership are crucial to the plot and its you three who keep removing other editors edits based on personal views colluding together withouyt even seeking a consensus, the contribution history of the GTA articles will reveal all that, and I haqve noticed this behavior from you three on all GTA articles. Anyway I did not break WP:3RR and I leave it to admins to decide now, whatever decision they take even if it goes against me, I will fully accept it. Take care. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dilbaggg ...all... GTA articles...? I haven't touched a GTA article since I reverted vandalism on Untitled Grand Theft Auto game months ago. And again with the meating accusations? I'm very much a regular editor, if I see something that seems messed up (as is your comments bordering on personal attacks), it is appropriate for me to remove it, even if I'm not Soetermans or an admin. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 10:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dilbaggg, I'm gonna repeat myself: do not baselessly accuse other editors of meatpuppeting. You're gravitating towards a block regardless of whether you had an edit war or not. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 10:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I edited Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas only once: the very edit that brought you to keep accusing me of meatpuppeting. Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 10:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I accused you oif that cause you removed the talk page warn of soetermans  where you falsely accused me of personalk attack whiich is what he did on my talk page and has done on other ditors even breaking WP:Civil calling their work "bullshit": . He has a habit of acting like the owner of GTA articles and I have every right to warn him for personal attacks on me, I did not attack him, warning is not the same as personal attacks. He was WP:GTS saying my edit is disruptive when he kept reverting my edit based on personal views, and this seems to be a practice on GTA article a group if editors try to push their personal views and remove contributions of other editors acting like article owners. I merely requested him to seek Wp:RfC but he instead boldy removes contents based on personal views and gives false warns of disruptive editing and you, him and User:TheDeviantPro are involved in this. There is nothing wrong in seeking a neutral WP:RfC instead of practically acting like artuicle owners, I even complied with the 700 word guide ofWP:Plot but still the cointent is removed based on the personal views of the wannabe bureaucratic owners of GTA article, this history tells it all: . Anyway i did not break WP:3RR, I had every right to request a proper consensus rather than this disruptive removal of contents, but I apologise for making the two reverts, indeed I was a bit aggressive and I seek the admin's forgivness and I should have gone for WP:DR than these twoi reverts. i would have never broken WP:3RR but I am sorry if it still counts as WP:EW. But this bureaucratic behavior in GTA articles must stop, the mansion and casino are vital to the plot according to WP:RS  and for removing them I merely want a proper NEUTRAL CONSENSUS rather than personal views. Anyway I gave my points, i will leave it to admins to decide. Peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I am spectaculary unimpressed with counting hours as a way to edit war without crossing 3RR. The rule is against edit warring, 3RR is there as an absolute limit at which edit warring is essentially prima facie, not for watching the clock. Courcelles (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It is hard to believe has been around for so long and has that many edits to their name, and still do not know what 3RR is, who must start a RfC and when to be civil. Perhaps a block of 36 hours is sufficient, but I do believe competence is required and Dilbaggg's not worth the trouble. Thank you, meatpuppet fellow editor  for stepping in.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You almost said the quiet part out loud! Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * left a message on my talk page. Since we're already discussing their edits,, , , and , and we're all a group of oligarchs, apparently I'm the "master oligarch", maybe we need to continue this discussion about their hostile attitude.  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 05:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I left the message where I apologized for Wp:EW but also noted you had falsely accused me of Wp:Vandal without WP:AGF when I just added [{WP:RS]] you don't want in the article based on personal views also you vilated WP:NPA by saying I am not competent and saying I am not worth it? Who are you to decide that? And edits that do not fit your personal views are not Vandalism, it is against rule to accuse fellow editors of WP:Vandal because their [{WP:RS]] edits did not fit your personal views as you did here, how is this vandalism when i merely reverted to the texts taht were removed without any clarification or consensus? The two eidt and the improper vandal warn:, and  also note the message above, if someone removes your talk page message you can't undo that, but you were acting dominant and aggressive. Anyway the main objection was I took WP:3RR for granted and did WP:EW and I did apologies that and I mentioned I won't edit Grand Theft Auto articles but their page history will indeed reval a dominant behavior by a few users including you who only wants selective contents absed on your personal views and delete any contyents you want even if they ar eWP:Notable because of personal choice. Thats the GTA project problem and not my problem. Like I said due to this behavior I will stop editing GTA articles for good but their history will reveal this behavior. But my main issue was your false warn of vandalism, I am guilty of Wp:EW and I will never do that again, but your warnj of me vandalising the article just be3cause it did not fit your personal views was improper. Anyway I have nothing more to say here and am done with GTA articles here as long as this behavior persists, I always respect admin juydgement and whatever admins want they can do, I am not even very active won Wikipedia anyway, but I have the right to tell you not to false warn me accusing me of vandalism, and do not make statements "he isn't worth it" which I take as personal attack, thats all. I deeply apologies for the WP:EW but I never vandalized the article and I have a right to tell someone not to give false accusation. I am done with this and GTA articles, goodbye and peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

User:112.203.113.91 reported by User:Inomyabcs (Result: Blocked (/24 range) for one week; blocked Andrewbfajardo indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Korean People's Army."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 1151940906 by 112.203.113.91 (talk). Reverted good faith attempt to add unreferenced Pakistan to weapon supplier section of infobox. Please cite Pakistan in the weapon section of the article, provide a citation in the infobox, or open a discussion on the Talk page."

Comments:

User ignoring all attempts at discussion/outreach. Also suspected sockpuppeted with Andrewbfajardo during the 3RR time period. Inomyabcs (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked IP (/24 range) for one week and Andrewbfajardo indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

User:CrashLandingNew reported by User:Ralx888 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

CrashLandingNew was blocked for a week for edit warring seen here and resumed it again on article Operation Blue Star as seen here, , , and then continued further on article Insurgency in Punjab, India as seen by edit warring diffs above. Ralx888 (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * To add, even after providing page number and quote from the citation, CrashLandingNew continued to revert as seen here. None of his revert description or discussion on talk page is healthy but very uncivil, making accusations after accusations. Ralx888 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See the talk page, it is already under discussion there. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * trying to justify your edit earrings on multiple pages? Kind of too late, isn’t it?Ralx888 (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I and another user were blocked once for a week but I don't see how that is to be held against me in every discussion. After the block, I started a discussion on the page for which we were blocked and since then it has resulted in a healthy discussion with many users.

It's evident from the history of the page under discussion and my own contribution history that I have not engaged in edit war rather I have started healthy discussions on talk pages for contentious edits. The user who has reported me doesn't like the fact that I ask for proper citations and source for adding information on pages and when I remove those changes I am accused of edit warring. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to involve myself in any arguments, but I do feel like it may be necessary at this point. In CrashLandingNew's defense, it does appear to be a case of WP:Tag teaming between CS1469 and Ralx88 . As far as I can tell, CrashLandingNew only reverted 3 times, not 4, in the second diff, CLN correctly removed a page which had nothing to do with the topic at hand, that does not count as a revert. Even CS1469 had removed page 92 as it was incorrectly added. S8 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh you are involved now because now it’s clear who is tag teaming here by welcoming your comments and look at the reverts, it’s 4. He was warned and blocked previously and continued the same. Ralx888 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * after being blocked and warned, continue to revert even 3 times is edit warring. Ralx888 (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that is a ✅ sock. --Yamla (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Bad-faith report by a confirmed sock. That said strongly advised to use dispute resolution rather than make repeated reverts. Abecedare (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Miesianiacal reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:07, 25 April 2023 part undoing
 * 2) 07:21, 26 April 2023‎ part undoing
 * 3) 07:30, 26 April 2023‎ undoing
 * 4) 02:42, 27 April 2023‎ removing wikilink to new redirect added here
 * 5) 03:34, 28 April 2023 undoing removal of 'separately' and addition of prime ministers

This all follows on from:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Miesianiacal always stays within the bright-line rule but continues to edit-war performing reverts just outside the 24-hour period. This is also systemic behaviour across multiple articles, such as three reverts on Monarchy of Fiji yesterday and move-warring at Proclamation of accession of Charles III Celia Homeford (talk) 08:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The edits were made within the context of multiple editors working out a mutually acceptable wording; hence, Celia Homeford has found it necessary to cherrypick edits made over a span of days. In the process of trying something or another, everyone undid part of something else, Celia Homeford very much included. 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a; 1b 2b; and 1c. Simultaneously, she targeted me (and me only) with condescendinginstructions and lecturing, continuing even after I requested she not post on my talkpage again. Attempts at civil discussion were made at the article talk page. However, Celia turned things personal for no apparent reason. My gut feeling tells me there's a vendetta afoot here. However, I realize my view could be biased. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  17:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not appear from the article history that the edits were that bothersome to everyone else save the reporter. The edit warring on Proclamation of accession of Charles III is a bit more concerning, but that hasn't broken 3RR; the move-warring would be more problematic ... but that happened almost two months ago, so it's stale at least as far as this noticeboard is concerned. I agree that there seems to be something personal here, however edit warring is a separate issue from editors rubbing each other the wrong way. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

User:MaximoolianOne reported by User:Adolphus79 (Result: MaximoolianOne indefinitely blocked from the article; Adolphus79 warned)
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: See edit summaries here, as well as discussion on User talk:MaximoolianOne.

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

Comments:

I have tried to clean this article of a large amount of unsourced, possibly OR, content while also making other minor grammar and punctuation fixes. The user in question has repeatedly restored their version, chooses to argue about how I am being abusive simply because they refuse to read any of the links I have provided in warnings and discussion, and believes WP:BURDEN does not apply to them. Claims that the goals of the article are to provide information to prospective residents instead of being encyclopedic and verifiable, and that we should "let users judge for themselves" if the content is true instead of providing a WP:RS. Has also accused me of making the changes based on personal interests, and claimed to have "reported" me to try to scare me off (Special:Contributions/MaximoolianOne shows this is was not true). - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The reporting user attempts to employ the "clean" label, when instead abusing editorial interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. When confronted with factual information and correct citation, the user wrongly cites policy for reasoning. Likewise, I have attempted to communicate and warn this user of their abuse of credentials and flagrant disregard of factual, relevant information, correct formatting, grammar, style, and other points incorrectly judged. Additionally, the user belittles other authors within their edits. User stated "this is peacocky" regardless of contextual merit, relevancy, and concise citation. Further, their "this reads like spam" was purely editorial and not founded in fact. It either *is* spam or it isn't. (It was not). It was an unjustified abuse of guidelines to omit relevant and/or perhaps inconvenient fact. The user claims accusations when confronted by their own reasoning.
 * The user was in fact reported via WP's admin form. The complaint included serial abuse of WP guidelines and policy, including those committed after warranted updates were provided. The user opted to delete entire sections instead of updating citation links as dead with an annotation.
 * The user's use of quotes on "reported" implies a prevarication by me, which according to WP's private Admin form submission data will be proven as valid, indicative of the users carefully-engineered manipulation. Finally, the user themselves generalized Wikipedia's own pages as unreliable, negating any credibility for their own reliability argument for the source cited. The user confuses context of "let the users judge for themselves" where relevant info was provided contrary to their attempted omissions and serial removals. In this case, a crime statistics source was cited that the user unilaterally deemed unreliable, regardless of Wikipedia veracity with no such disclaimer, nor other source cited by the user to verify their claim -- and based on their interpretation, removed an entire 1,900+ word block that included factual information not claimed as reliable by said user.
 * The facts and context speak for themselves. While the user is well-versed in WP debate procedure, their editorial adjudication merits impartial administrative inspection. It has been requested. MaximoolianOne (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've indefinitely blocked MaximoolianOne from editing the article. is warned that if he edit-wars again, he risks being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "In this case, a crime statistics source was cited that the user unilaterally deemed unreliable"... again, "areavibes.com" is not a reliable source, please read WP:RS, if you had, we would not be here right now.
 * You accuse me of "serial abuse of WP guidelines and policy", but you haven't even mentioned which of these you believe I have "abused". I have tried numerous times to get you to read WP:RS, WP:V, and many other rather important ideas around here, but instead you just blindly make these accusations (and edits) without any evidence that you even care about the rules (specifically WP:BURDEN). You were originally warned about adding unsourced content, and instead of just finding a reliable source to re-add the content properly, you chose to argue and accuse me of wrongdoing. All I have done is edit/remove content that was either unsourced, sourced very poorly, or clearly original research. Any "carefully-engineered manipulation" was done by consensus a long time ago when the policies and guidelines that keep this place running smoothly were put in place. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User:119.224.20.240 reported by User:DIYeditor (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:

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

Comments:

—DIYeditor (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

User:69.131.5.149 reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kingdom of Strathclyde."
 * 2)   "stop warring"
 * 3)   "3rr"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Courcelles (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

User:87.208.148.99 reported by User:Ermenrich (Result: Blocked 31 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The IP is insisting on adding substantial material to the article on the outdated sources. When I offered a compromise position based on a modern source, I was reverted. The IP has also made a number of strange and not particularly civil accusations in his edit summaries and in his discussion on the talk page.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Osterluzei reported by User:HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (In a bizarre case, this editor is actually edit warring on that very talk page by blindly blanking my talk page comments. I've notified them on their own talk page with repeated warnings, but they just keep doing it.)

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

Comments: User is repeatedly refactoring and removing my talk comments objecting to his usage of the extremely biased Russian state media source TASS, refusing to engage or respond to my comments by just blanking everything I post. Never seen something like this before. HappyWith (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

User:BabbarBaloch reported by User:Wesoree (Result: Blocked for two weeks)
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: none, as I don't see any dispute resolution.

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

Comments:

Definitely not reading their messages on talk page. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 19:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * additionally, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Continuously reverting other editors' works. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 19:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

User:KlayCax reported by User:Freoh (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

needed to because of a (slow) edit war involving several people, including. Unfortunately, continued edit warring after the lock was lifted. I do not know of a 3RR violation, but, , , , and I have all previously tried to explain at their talk page how an edit war disrupts Wikipedia, so this seems like a chronic problem. Hopefully, uninvolved editors here can help. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 20:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I see editing yesterday, but not edit waring. Looks like peaceful collaboration. Confirm? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted, and per Deepfriedokra I do not see any edit warring in the recent history since the full protection expired. I do see that Klay has been very aggressive and bold in removing material; perhaps that has ruffled a few feathers but that does not of itself rise to the level of edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have included 's explanation of the edit war .  removed File:United_States_evolution_small.gif multiple times  . Several users were discussing this image at at, and  removed it once again  the lock was lifted .  and , could you explain how this is  an edit war? &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Has not edited since 4/28. Looks like they stopped. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words, they had stopped before you posted this. Also, did you notify them of this discussion? Seems rude to talk behind their back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said in the original post, I notify  of this discussion . If you are willing to vouch for KlayCax and assure me that their edit war will not continue, then that sounds good to me. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 16:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

User:CWCvilleresident1982 reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1152847748 by PriusGod (talk) Not vandalism. It is elaborated on from the source about CWC."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1152847495 by Schazjmd (talk) I don't know how it violates that, I am not insulting her and it is reliable."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1152847327 by Larry Hockett (talk) I explained my edit. It is reliable and has covered CWC before."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1152846891 by Larry Hockett (talk) I added a citation from Insider."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1152846553 by Larry Hockett (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And image nommed for deletion on Commons if anyone here with admin powers would like to remove it, please.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Vuzorg reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Pure WP:WAR and WP:3RR by Semsûrî, Undid revision 1152867163 by Semsûrî (talk)"
 * 2)  "He is a prominent Zaza) Undid revision 1152854104 by Semsûrî (talk)"
 * 3)  "He is Zaza Undid revision 1152841062 by Semsûrî (talk)"
 * 4)  "He is Zaza."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also at Ehmedê Xasî. We've had discussions on talkpages including mine about their problematic edits but to no prevail. Semsûrî (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As everyone see, User talk:Semsûrî does not allow other users to contribute to Wikipedia, he follows Zaza language article and all other Zaza-related articles reverts the smallest edit immediately. His talk page and his contribution pattern are the greatest proof of his actions. He multiple times reverted my and other users' contributions without any valid reason. He removes the words Zaza from the articles and adds the word Kurd instead. I warned him against the edit war several times on his message page. Wikipedia is a platform where everyone can contribute. Attempting to own certain articles is against fundamental Wikipedia policies. Osman Efendîyo Babij was a famous Zaza religious figure and Mufti of Siverek whose 1903 book Mawlûd is known to be the second published book in Zaza. He removed the word Zaza from the article (and other similar articles too) and adds Kurdish instead. Vuzorg (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After three reverts yesterday, Vuzorg has not made any more. I would caution him, however, that if the reverts resume in the near future, even if they do not violate 3RR, this sort of thing is extremely prejudicial to the assumption of good faith by admins. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Knowledge means collecting all existing research and writings on a subject. This may also be the opposite view. Based on this, it should not be the initiative of a single person to think one-sidedly and sort out the references as unreliable, as user Semsûrî is doing here. If so, it would be a biased personal opinion and therefore not true information. Other Wikipedia people should also grapple with this issue and not leave it to the political will and mercy of a single person. I hope that someone is interested in this problem and finds a common solution. Thanks everyone in advance. -- Mirzali (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Mirzali, I'm not debating with you any longer. I've told you time after time that you need to read on Wikipedia's guidelines for behaviour on editing. Semsûrî (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They have made four identical edits in less than 24 hours (reverts). Or am I missing something? Semsûrî (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed you are. The first edit, which I note was also the first edit to the article in over six months, was not a revert. The rule is three reverts, not "the same edit four times" within 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Turkishmanship reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: Blocked indef as a disruptive SPA)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "How is summarizing the article in a sentence and demanding a citation for unsourced claim is not an improvement ?"
 * 2)  "I demand a reason for why my content is being removed."
 * 3)  "No reason was stated in removal of my content which was summarizing the article. No reason was mentioned when my content was removed in the summary."
 * 4)  "Making some major points clear. requesting a citation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

May i ask what is 3RR warning ? Also i think i am the one who should report you. Because you are the one removing my content without making any point in your edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkishmanship (talk • contribs) 22:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * as a disruptive SPA, and logged due to this taking place in a contentious topic. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:BlueboyLINY reported by User:MasterControlMaster13 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: BlueboyLINY has accused me of making what he feels are "unconstructive" and "disruptive" edits for several weeks now, even edits which have made corrections in content, grammar, structure, or added references and links for verification. In this example, I made corrections and added links for proof, but he reverted them wholly and then attempted to add back two of my references in a later revision. BlueboyLINY is not interested in conflict resolution (as a previous dispute with WVBN (FM) showed me) but rather in creating conflict where none existed previously. I would rather not engage with such an editor and just continue my work, but this incident is the final straw. If you can assist me in anyway it would be greatly appreciated. MasterControlMaster13 (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate...are you stating that what BlueboyLINY is doing to me is within bounds? MasterControlMaster13 (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the edit-warring noticeboard. Both you and Blueboy reverted twice between May 2 and May 4. Before that no one has edited the article since March. Neither of you violated 3RR or even came close. If you have a generalized complaint about Blueboy's conduct that rises to the level of warranting sanctions in your view, then you should file a complaint at WP:ANI. I have no opinion on the merits of such a complaint.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:96.61.97.209 reported by User:FenrisAureus (Result: Partial block 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version: IP keeps attempting to blank section "Attempt to ban library books"
 * 1)
 * 2)  contested section was shortened by  as an attempted compromise

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

Comments:

IP has been warned 5 times. Multiple attempts at resolution. No change in behavior. Definitely NOTHERE.

See also: my post at the teahouse (April 24) - FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 13:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked from that article 24 hours to see if we can get them to the talk page. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am (relatively) new to wikipedia what should i do if that fails? - FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 13:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @FenrisAureus, if they start up again, come back, and we'll block again for a longer period. You can ping me here if you like. Valereee (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - FenrisAureus ▼  ( talk ) 14:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:175.144.207.36 reported by User:Xeverything11 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Virtual Tourism */Added content relevant to topic and removed garbage"
 * 2)  "/* Virtual Tourism */Removed garbage trash and replaced with genuine content relevant to the topic :)"
 * 3)  "/* Virtual Tourism */Removed trash :) fixed :))"
 * 4)  "/* Virtual Tourism */Removed garbage replaced with content relevant to topic :)"
 * 5)  "/* Virtual Tourism */Removed trash *fixed* :)"
 * 6)  "/* Cultural impact */Erased crap nonsense and replaced with wholesome content from a true dedicated fan relevant to the franchise"
 * 7)  "/* Cultural impact */Added content relevant to the topic removed garbage :)"
 * 1)  "/* Cultural impact */Erased crap nonsense and replaced with wholesome content from a true dedicated fan relevant to the franchise"
 * 2)  "/* Cultural impact */Added content relevant to the topic removed garbage :)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Favonian (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please extend the block. This user is a known sock with five years of history. Disregard; a more effective solution has been implemented. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

User:CerroFerro reported by User:Robert Kerber (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User repeatedly reverts "tone" tag without addressing article issues commented upon by three different users, makes false claims, refers to talk page without participating in discussion other than "provide examples" notes, examples had been given but ignored by said user.
 * from the article for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I am commenting here because I have Cerro Ferros user page watchlisted and was and am surprised of their block. 1st Cerro Ferro did not make 3 reverts within 24 hours. Then article is at a first glance very well sourced, and to the only explicitly mentioned phrase I also don't see the reason why it should be rephrased. As for me, the phrase is crafted in an interesting style. If this is a mess...I'd also ask for a better explanation for why the tag is needed.  Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * CF never participated in the talk thread they repeatedly advised others to start, even after it was started, one that per his edit summary requests gave at least one example.. I see that you have, and has dealt with your argument so expediently as to obviate the need for further explication here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First, I repeat, there was no violation of the 3RR rule. The reverts took place between the 24th April and the 2 May. Then the discussion took place a section lower than your linked one. And in that discussion CF actually did take part and gave answers three times, on the 30 April, the 1 May  and the 2 May. The tag was for repeated issues and one phrase was given and this by Nikkimaria, not by the original tagger who is also the filer of the EW report. An advice to the filer of the report to abstain of making nonsense reports after refusing to give examples at the talk page would have been a solution, too.    Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * While this noticeboard was, indeed, originally AN/3RR, it was long ago renamed to reflect the reality that there are ways one can disruptively edit-war without making more than three reverts of the same edit within 24 hours. As WP:EW quite clearly and unabiguously says, "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." As noted at the section you linked, three different editors restored the tone tag, suggesting some consensus that there was an issue around this. CF continued to revert, asking people to take it to the talk page. When they did, in the section I linked, and Nikkimaria cited an example, CF never responded ... you did (with, as I noted, a rather risible defense that, as she noted in her own response, has nothing to do with policy). As further noted in the linked diff (and frankly, I couldn't have written a better justification for the partial block than did there), CF continued reverting the addition of the tag even after both discussions were underway. This is accepted as edit-warring, no matter how frequently it happens, warranting at least the partial-block sanction I imposed—and CF should be thankful this isn't occurring in an article under CTOPS, because then it could have meant a sitewide block. Behavior like this is why we have some articles in CTOPS under a clearly-noticed zero-revert rule (i.e., you cannot revert any substantial change without discussing it on the talk page). I also find CF's responses in the later thread to be tendentious sea-lioning, in that they are intended to make them appear to be behaving rationally and civilly (although again we should note that "the high quality of the article" is never a defense to editorial criticism). Yes, it would have been nice if the other three editors had provided examples (although given your defense of the one Nikkimaria gave earlier, I can't say I blame them for being hesitant as it can easily be argued from what you wrote that you have absolutely no understanding of what could be the problem, or even that there could be a problem). But to have that kind of discussion, you have to have at least tacit agreement to leave that section of the article alone in the meantime. Instead, CF seems to have used the lack of examples given as the excuse needed to remove the tone tag. And you are surprised they were blocked. Now I understand, because I've been in this situation where someone has tagged an article I've largely written for something like this, and hasn't given examples when asked beyond, "Well, I feel this isn't right". But that means you wait a while before you remove the tag. And there are other options besides "repeatedly and petulantly restoring the edit". CF could have more intensely asked the editors to provide examples. They could have sought dispute resolution or some other ways to get more editors involved. They could have taken the very drastic step of requesting full protection of the article for a few days to force discussion. But no, they chose to act in a manner unbecoming a Wikipedian. And I cannot leave off on this long response without some comment on your posts here, PC. To me they have already gone a little too far down the road of wikilawyering and hairsplitting for me not to strongly advise you to drop the stick. Someone with a block log like yours is really not in the position to so casually lecture admins about this. (I am also, to be honest, a little curious as to why you have come here, not having participated in this dispute much, to so vigorously defend someone because their page is on your watchlist, even though they have the freedom to come here and defend themselves as they are only blocked from the one article). Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd expect from an admin to be able to explain what the issue on tone is in an AGF way, much more if the article in question is about a film director and the admin has a GA review on a film article going on.
 * Then to answer your curiosity for why I defend CF: it is because I all my blocks were unjustified and I believe I would have been quite glad to have had a lawyer in those cases. I was open about the unjustified blocks in the past and to prevent further comments similar to that I am in no position to lecture admins I updated my user page so my blocking historial is transparent for you and other editors. Not all blocks are correct, much less your comment on my blocks. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'd expect from an admin to be able to explain what the issue on tone is in an AGF way". Uh, hello, this was my job now? My job was to review the editing involved and see if actionable edit warring occurred. I decided it had. It was the job of the other editors to explain this, which, as noted below, they did. And even that might not have been necessary; an introspective, reflective enough editor might well have been able to look at the article and find places where they might go, hey, yes, I wrote this but you know, those other editors just might have a point here or there. That would certainly be an improvement over "I like the way this sounds"
 * "... much more if the article in question is about a film director and the admin has a GA review on a film article going on" And what point was that possibly intended to make? So you looked at my recent contribs. So? How would having a GA review ongoing be some reason I would have to explain the tonal issues of an article another editor whom you are so passionate about defending because, you say, their user page is on your watchlist, when that article is about a somewhat related subject as the GA? That's the sort of "counterargument" people make when they're so emotionally wounded that they need to feel like they responded but know they have no leg to stand on.
 * "it is because I all my blocks were unjustified" You and so many other people.
 * "I believe I would have been quite glad to have had a lawyer in those cases" Your ambivalent phrasing belies your previously stated self-confidence. And frankly I'd be most interested in hearing from CF himself on the issue.
 * "Not all blocks are correct, much less your comment on my blocks." We'll see about that. We'll see about that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, where do you want to have a review on the last phrase? But I believe it is open harassment from an admin to an AGF editor. I was blocked for a month after having reported one who violated their topic ban and after they wrote about me: So basically they admit to being a racist user. I do not know how it is ok to have racist users on Wikipedia If you really want to challenge that unblock, go for it. I take you by your word.   Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "where do you want to have a review on the last phrase?" At a time and place of my choosing. And as for this thread I'm done now. Go and sin no more. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Paradise_Chronicle: User Nikkimaria had given two examples, not one, while I had clearly referred to puffery in my comment when I first tagged the article for tone, which is absolutely sufficient and in accordance with WP rules. The only person acting uncooperative and non-constructive was user CerroFerro with his/her repeated reverts (3 alone between April 30th and May 2nd) while at the same time refusing to participate in any kind of discussion, only repeating his "give evidence/examples" phrase. Please do not make false claims and refrain from allegiations such as "making nonsense reports" with regard to my person in the future.
 * Daniel_Case: Thank you for taking the time to solve and explain this. Robert Kerber (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2a00:23c4:2485:4801:9571:79c6:4f62:f8d7 reported by User:AugustusAudax (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Active edit war, user keeps censoring a report on a death, saying: "Think about how you would feel if it was your relation." That's not a valid reason. Diffs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153510230

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153509878

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153509878

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153509592

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153508745 Sincerely, --AugustusAudax (talk|contribs) P.S: Aliens exist 21:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C4:2485:4801:9571:79C6:4F62:F8D7 reported by User:AugustusAudax (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dixon%27s_Chimney_and_Shaddon_Mill&oldid=1153508260

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [1153510416]
 * 2) [1153510230]
 * 3) [1153509878]
 * 4) [1153508745]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:2A00:23C4:2485:4801:9571:79C6:4F62:F8D7]

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

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

Comments:

Sorry this is so hasty, it's active. Sincerely, --AugustusAudax (talk|contribs) P.S: Aliens exist 21:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Dac gori032 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1153520736 by Materialscientist (talk) Makes no sense."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1153519214 by FlightTime (talk) Correct information"
 * 3)  "/* top */Made light to the recent allegations against The Tuck. Also Grammer mistakes and some more information about famous moments of Trinity"
 * 4)  "/* top */Fixed typo"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1107590112 by Another Believer (talk) This is correct information"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1107590112 by Another Believer (talk) This is correct information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Trinity the Tuck."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Trinity the Tuck."
 * 3)   "+ Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * It's been two actual reverts so far. But Dac would be wise to refrain from doing it a third time at this point, as they seem to have been so far. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:9A00:B700:818:134:63FA:588E reported by User:Shadow of the Starlit Sky (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1153837120 by Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1153836756 by Michaeldble (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1153836491 by Michaeldble (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message about your edit on Chester F.C. (level 1) (AV)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked 48h for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:165.16.41.28 reported by User:Lone-078 (Result: Blocked, page semied)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
 * 3)   "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent removal of sourced content. Same as 165.16.40.45 who was blocked today, thus it is also block evasion. Refusal to communicate. May I suggest a rangeblock on the 165.16.40.0/23 range? Lone-078 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * and page semi'ed. Courcelles (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Solaire the knight, and User:174.164.163.141 reported by User:CandyScythe (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyScythe (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Solaire the knight: 174.164.163.141: (by Solaire the knight)

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

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

Comments:

Past edit warring in the same article: CandyScythe (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely outrageous that not only did you put me next to an anonymous person who has been waging an edit war with deletion of information for several days on the article for no reason, but you also put me higher and also tried to connect it with a completely different mine conflict. Anonymity violations are so obvious (and I even warned them that a double violation of the three-revocation rule would result in an appeal to the administrators) that I consider such actions as targeted harassment. I even asked several times to protect the article from anonymous edits due to ongoing and quite possibly politically motivated vandalism. But now, in the end, I've been blamed for it myself. Are you kidding me? Solaire the knight (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record: Best, CandyScythe (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What a mess, six reverts each. Solaire, this is your second edit warring block in 5 weeks, so you need to become far more familiar with ways to avoid being drug into edit wars. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Erenyeager008 reported by User:Nemov (Result: Blocked 24h; article on ECP for a year)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored an authentic info"
 * 2)  "Reverted an unwanted edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "That was a big spoiler-in-your-face. Stop doing it" – reverted a revert #1
 * 2)  "I don't think it is. Prove it." – reverted a revert #2
 * 3)  – 3RR warning for The Empire Strikes Back
 * 4)  – reverted a revert #3
 * 5)  – EW warning for Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continued reverting after receiving warning. User was warned. Nemov (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Added to the diffs above. This editor is intentionally wasting the community's time, evidenced by misleading responses on their talk page which falsely indicate the message is getting through. The last warning I issued was blatantly ignored within a few short hours. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . Did not violate 3RR, but the persistence of the edits over the last couple of days and the history of previous edit warring and disruption with only lip service (if any) paid to the many, many warnings received in just three months on Wikipedia argue for a block. Investigating this showed just how much ongoing disruption has vexed this article, leading a considerable amount of protection in the past. Since some of the disruption came from autoconfirmed accounts like this one, I reluctantly decided to escalate to extended-confirmed protection for a year even though there have been constructive contributions from IP editors in the year since the last protection expired. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Olivermal reported by User:10mmsocket (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1153870484 by Murgatroyd49 (talk) Image is sufficiently farmed and clear to see. There is also no image of this already, and you have not provided an alternative. you seem more interested in your personal tastes than in providing information."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1153853144 by 10mmsocket (talk). Image is not poorly lit, and shows something not already illustrated."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1153853144 by 10mmsocket (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eurostar."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In addition to this username, the image was also added by - obviously the same person. The user's response to mine and Murgatroyd49‎'s post on their talk page was to blank it with the edit summary "removing old fluff". This is in addition to his/her disrespectful response to Murgatroyd49‎ in the edit summary when reverting Murgatroyd49‎'s revert on the article. In addition to the off-the-shelf 3RR warning I put "I suggest you remove the image from the page and start a discussion on the article's talk page. Keep the image in place and you will be reported." 10mmsocket (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I find your behaviour counterproductive and annoying. You seem to have very strong personal opinions regarding how pages about railways should look. You and another user appear to be conspiring against me to remove any images I add. My only intention with adding images is to improve the quality of articles. I find removing images, which are directly related to written content, will reduce the utility of the article if you do not provide an alternative image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermal (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I would also add that my response to your partner Murgatroyd49, that my response was not disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivermal (talk • contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)