Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive468

User:DASL51984 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: DASL51984 blocked for 48h; Redacted II warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1153878553 by Fyunck(click) (talk) Seriously, stop this crap as it's already been settled and you're dangerously close to starting an edit war."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1153861989 by Redacted II (talk) Again, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and has been discussed many, many times. This should not have to be discussed."
 * 3)  "Whether the vehicle was a prototype or an operational version is completely irrelevant."
 * 4)  "Dude, stop it."
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
 * 6)  "Removing "dubious" template again. This is not even a debate. Accept it, move on, and do NOT try to start an edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on SpaceX Starship."
 * 2)   "/* May 2023 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Change made to failure status */"
 * 2)   "/* Change made to failure status */"
 * 3)   "/* Change made to failure status */"
 * 4)   "/* Change made to failure status */"
 * 5)   "/* Dubious tag in infobox */"
 * 6)   "/* Dubious tag in infobox */"

Comments:

I asked this editor to self revert as they are reverting multiple editors 5x when the warning was given. Now 6x.They refused so it was reported. There is ongoing discussion at the talk page waiting for a closer to decide on strength of argument, sourcing, and votes though not on tagging the section with a footnote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note - this is the type of post we are now dealing with this editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I rightfully removed it as it was already clear that the launch was a failure, and now on the talk page the debate has been settled. Why you continue to beat this already dead horse by shoehorning it back in is beyond me.
 * User:Redacted II has also been doing the same thing Fyunck(click) has been doing as well. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 22:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked DASL51984 for 48h for violating 3RR. I am also warning for edit-warring. The only reason I am not blocking them is because they are a new user and were never warned. DASL51984 was warned late and did not revert after the warning, but they are an experienced user (with an extensive, albeit old, block log for disruption) and did not need a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Sol505000 reported by User:93.143.79.158 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours; article semi-protected for a day)
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]

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

Comments:

And insulting on a national basis. I didn't offend him. [] and []93.143.79.158 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * As can be seen on the IP's talk page and edit summaries, I requested them to propose their changes on the article talk page, but they continuously refused to do so. The proper response here is a WP:BOOMERANG. –Vipz (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone, it's me again, my IP has changed on its own, such a network. I have to answer this question. How can you talk to someone with an IP [] who has changed and changed and invented something that is not written in the source it is correct to go back to what he correctly wrote in the source. Now imagine that I invent something and add something that is not written in the source and say, let's go to the chat page later and talk about it. I think that's nonsense. In addition, I see on your page [] that you are a "supports the reunification of the Serbo-Croatian language" that's what it says on your page. I have to tell you that today it is impossible when there are Serbian language and Croatian language that are recognized in the world, in the EU as separate languages, because they are independent states today.Unfortunately, I have to tell you that you are living in the past, when there was a state of Yugoslavia that no longer exists, and none of those forms of the Serbian-Croatian language, because times have changed, there is no longer a common state of Yugoslavia and everyone has their own language that is recognized in the EU and the world. It is clear to me why you would change the source for the sake of your politics, because you stand for the Serbo-Croatian language, while today there are only Croatian and Serbian languages, which have been recognized in the UN and the EU since 1990, when they became independent states. Please don't support a vandal who changes sources for his own benefit and it is not written there, and I see you like it too, I see from your page, because you are a fan of the Serbian-Croatian language, because that is against Wikipedia. We should respect the sources and what is written in them. Thank you.93.142.169.186 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 3RRNO cannot be invoked here. In order to prevent the IP from editing if his IP is switched again, I will be semi-protecting the article for the same period. I would have imposed a rangeblock but it would have required a /15 CIDR, which the software does not allow. And there are many other people on the /16. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case: the IP jumped right back in to revert-war after the article got unprotected. They keep dismissing the request for gathering consensus. –Vipz (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * for a week; I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page and logged this action. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

User:TC-01e reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1153984841 by Trailblazer101 (talk) Throwing a hissy fit because you want a low resolution copyrighted image is not useful. See other pages like The Book of Boba Fett which uses a high resolution vectorized image rather than a low res copyright infringement"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* The Penguin */ new section"
 * 2)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on The Penguin (TV series)."

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

Comments:

I didn't want to have to report this editor as they seem new to the encyclopedia, although they have ignored my efforts to explain, clarify, and discuss the situation of the logo and image policy with them, alleged copyright infringement where there is none, and targeted me of a "hissy fit" by upholding standard practices and guidelines for reverting unexplained edits. This is a last resort given they don't appear to be stopping unless their preferred version is in place. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have tried to talk to you on my talk page but you don't want to engage with the content of the dispute which is you uploading copyrighted images rather than using images that meet the originality threshold and are of a higher resolution. Calm down. You started the edit war and has refused to understand copyright violations, undoing any edits that challenge your own copyright violations with unaltered images of logos. TC-01e (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor engaged in the discussion at their talk page only after I started it in the middle of your initially unexplained edit warring and after this report was made, and the editor had initially ignored my efforts for them to discuss their initial unexplained and repeated reverts, even after I called for them to explain their rationale further at the talk. Typically, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain, although I have not reverted again as the discussion at the talk has had some back-and-forth constructive developments. The editor does not appear to understand the use of non-free title card logos, which I explained at their talk discussion. Their attitudes in regards to this issue seemed unwarranted, especially with them making unfounded accusations, thus the report being issued. I did upload a better quality logo to the original filename to alleviate their concerns, though it will still be made a lower file size. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But both editors went right up to the line. It's good that you've started talking ... keep doing that instead of reverting. And it also would be constructive to avoid characterizing the other editor's opposition as a "hissy fit". Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: And please continue this discussion on the talk page. You might not have ended up here if you'd gone there first. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:Kaalakaa (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  “Lgv (sock)”
 * 2)
 * 3)   “Restored (sock)”

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

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

Comments: I fixed the content of the article because it didn't match what its source said. Then this user came and reverted my edit on the grounds of "Lgv (sock)". I then tried to invite them to discuss the matter and explain my edit on the talk page, but they replied with, "Please refer yourself to a check user. If you are not a sockpuppet of the editor whose edits you're reinstating, I will happily engage further." And they reverted it again. Kaalakaa (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This will probably be a WP:BOOMERANG. You should discuss the content dispute on the talk page as NEDOCHAN advises. — Czello (music) 12:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry? It was actually the other way around, I was the one who invited him to discuss it on the talk page, I also quoted what the source actually says. But instead he told me "Please refer yourself to a check user. If you are not a sockpuppet of the editor whose edits you're reinstating, I will happily engage further." And reverted it again. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry if this is not the place to ask this. But I had explained the reason of my edits on the article’s talk page and invited the user in question to discuss the matter, but he declined my invitation and instead told me to refer myself to a check user first to see if I am not a sockpuppet of the user whose edits I reinstated. I don't see how this has anything to do with the content of the article, and actually if you see article’s revision history  it’s clear that what I was reinstating was my own edits, so I honestly don’t know what he was talking about. He also implied on his talk page that I was doing sockpuppetry . So what should I do about this? Besides, isn't accusing someone with no evidences classified as a personal attack? and constantly reverting edits while rejecting to have a discussion, I believe this violates one of the policies. Kaalakaa (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Pizzigs 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 / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This is another one of the edit warriors who contributed to the United States lockdown a couple of weeks ago and violated WP:3RR soon after the article was unlocked. Some of these edits fall within the scope of WP:ARBAP2, a contentious topic. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 12:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC); edited 17:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . The last two edits were on May 7. The edits before that were on May 3 and then going back into April. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , could you explain how this behavior does violate Wikipedia's edit warring policy? Why is it relevant that some of this edit war occurred on May 3?  provided me with a few additional diffs that I just included. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 20:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Ajeeb Prani reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: Ajeeb Prani & TheCatLife both blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Why are you removing air dates? It (https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/part-3-of-pokemon-ultimate-journeys-the-series-is-coming-to-netflix#:~:text=Check%20out%20the%20latest%20trailer,Pok%C3%A9mon%20Ultimate%20Journeys%3A%20The%20Series.) states they will release 15 episodes on June 23rd, I hope you know basic Mathematics"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1154280514 by TheCatLife (talk) You've already warned about it"
 * 3)  "/* Episode list */https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/part-3-of-pokemon-ultimate-journeys-the-series-is-coming-to-netflix#:~:text=Check%20out%20the%20latest%20trailer,Pok%C3%A9mon%20Ultimate%20Journeys%3A%20The%20Series."
 * 1)  "/* Episode list */https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/part-3-of-pokemon-ultimate-journeys-the-series-is-coming-to-netflix#:~:text=Check%20out%20the%20latest%20trailer,Pok%C3%A9mon%20Ultimate%20Journeys%3A%20The%20Series."
 * 1)  "/* Episode list */https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/part-3-of-pokemon-ultimate-journeys-the-series-is-coming-to-netflix#:~:text=Check%20out%20the%20latest%20trailer,Pok%C3%A9mon%20Ultimate%20Journeys%3A%20The%20Series."
 * 1)  "/* Episode list */https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/part-3-of-pokemon-ultimate-journeys-the-series-is-coming-to-netflix#:~:text=Check%20out%20the%20latest%20trailer,Pok%C3%A9mon%20Ultimate%20Journeys%3A%20The%20Series."
 * 1)  "/* Episode list */https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/part-3-of-pokemon-ultimate-journeys-the-series-is-coming-to-netflix#:~:text=Check%20out%20the%20latest%20trailer,Pok%C3%A9mon%20Ultimate%20Journeys%3A%20The%20Series."
 * 1)  "/* Episode list */https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/part-3-of-pokemon-ultimate-journeys-the-series-is-coming-to-netflix#:~:text=Check%20out%20the%20latest%20trailer,Pok%C3%A9mon%20Ultimate%20Journeys%3A%20The%20Series."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly added back the English dub titles despite multiple editors seeming to agree to wait until they are listed on the official website. HAs recevied 2 final warnings for edit warring which they've blanked from their talk page ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Has also been edit warring on the same page, reverting this editor (would've included them in the report but I don't know how to make a report for more than one person with Twinkle). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Those episodes have aired in Canada in English Dub that's why I added them, I told them to discuss on talk page but they didn't listen. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are NOT supposed to add dub titles until they're listed on Pokemon.com. Why is that so hard for you to understand? TheCatLife (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not they have aired in Canada? Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I told both of you to take it to the talk page and neither of you seem to have listened. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Blaze Wolf Can you add air dates for episode 30 to 46 (except recap episodes) as this source claims that they'll release 15 episodes on June 23rd. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit requests are an option. Make one. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also look at their edit summary they are acting like they own that article. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * JBW (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Hunterb212 reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has previously been blocked for edit warring and back in January Hammersoft gave Hunterb212 another warning about edit warring.

Hunterb212 has, for a number of years, been trying to push the idea that the only reliable website for stats is the NFL's website, which is simply not true. Without getting too much into it, the NFL's website is not frequently updated and players will go their whole careers without their weight being updated. The NFL WikiProject, without consensus as to what should be given the most weight, considers NFL.com, Pro-Football-Reference, and the individual teams' websites as reliable sources for player information.

Previous discussion, which resulted in no consensus, at the NFL WikiProject that Hunterb212 started to try to gain consensus for only using NFL.com for measurements:

I started a similar discussion in August of 2022 that also did not result in a consensus:

While I've tried to avoid getting into it with them in the past, it's been a recurring issue for quite some time. I've let it go in the past and moved on, but their behaviour has not improved despite the block and warning from earlier this year. The inappropriate threats to try to force their preferred version of the article has pushed me to the point that I feel like this behaviour needs to be addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* FIA Formula 2 Championship */ It is not factual.  Why do you keep it up?   What is wrong with you?"
 * 2)  "/* Controversy */ Not based on any facts.  Total hearsay What is wrong with you?"
 * 3)  "/* Controversy */ INACURATE HEARSAY"
 * 4)  "/* FIA Formula 2 Championship */  INACCURATE STATEMENTS"
 * 1)  "/* FIA Formula 2 Championship */  INACCURATE STATEMENTS"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note also two edits immediately prior to this editor's edits by which began the edit war. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 20:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Ruach Chayim reported by User:AlexBachmann (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: e.g.

Diffs of the user's reverts: (there are way too many, look up the articles history to see more)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: e.g.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (I did not start the discussing, however, I participated)

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

Comments:

The user was banned for a week. Once the ban expired, he did not hesitate to revert my edits that I've made while he was gone (without discussing). He has been warned my multiple users (inlcuding me, an admin, and another user (see: ). However, he thinks every time that he has been wronged. This has been going on for a while. -AlexBachmann (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . They've returned to the same articles to continue the same edit wars immediately following the expiry of their last block.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Roman Reigns Fanboy reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Declined; editors made amends)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1154403894 by Trailblazer101 (talk) Because Jason clearly said he shot with multiple Batmen but doesn't know what the end product will be, that would include Affleck's Batman"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1154403157 by Trailblazer101 (talk) Not constructive, the status of Batman is unclear"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1154400646 by Trailblazer101 (talk) I checked the source, it actually doesn't even say Keaton's role was cut."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1154363084 by Trailblazer101 (talk) We don't go by WP:RUMOR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is an active edit war in which the other editor and myself are wholly aware we are both in violation of 3RR and I have encouraged civil discussion and requested page protection whilst continually reexplaining my edits and what the contents of the article are. I fear this is not going anywhere and we both need intervention to cool this off for a bit, and am willing to accept the consequences for the violation on my part. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've actually tried to make a compromise with User: Trailblazer101. However, I violated 3RR in anger and am willing to accept consequences. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We both were trying to compromise and had our own vaults. We are both at fault. This should have been handled better from both of us, and while the current resolution appears to be what I was suggesting, I do believe policy ought to be upheld as this is a teaching lesson for us both. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All you did was revert me and kept the edits you wanted in the Cast section as it is, you just simply hid the text. All the while talking about compromise and still insisting that Keaton was cut from Aquaman 2, but Affleck wasn't . You didn't attempt any compromise in actuality. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll let the sources and my edits speak for myself, and I do not wish to further reexplain this at my talk or here and wish this to be behind us and for us to go our separate ways. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I've decided to self revert as I got into edit warring in anger earlier. I apologise for reverting. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * as it looks from above like editors realized they could end this destructive conflict. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Tzaquiel reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:32, 13 May 2023
 * 2) 21:02, 13 May 2023
 * 3) 19:06, 13 May 2023
 * 4) 18:47, 13 May 2023
 * 5) 18:02, 13 May 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Kenquenito, User:Lightlylove, User:Lililolol reported by User:Paper9oll (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Kenquenito (now blanked)
 * 2) Lightlylove
 * 3) Lililolol

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:

All 3 editors kept edit warring between each other, since 7 May 2023, pertaining to "highest-grossing girl group tour" with 2 (Lightlylove, Lililolol) vs 1 (Kenquenito) situation where the latter insisted that The Straits Times is considered unreliable sources due to it quoting from some Twitter sourcing or something along those lines while the 2 former disagreeing with such. In which, the latter has created a discussion at Talk:Born Pink World Tour, however the 2 former has not participated in and continued to throw words at each other using edit summary while reverting each other, and also throwing words at User talk:Lightlylove by Kenquenito. To date, Kenquenito has violated 6RR, Lightlylove violatted 3RR, and Lililolol violated 2RR.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  08:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reporting. This @Lightlylove (along with her alleged dummy account, @Lililolol) keep on insisting the The Straits Times' and The Korea Times' articles are reliable although their stories came from Touring Data on Twitter. Twitter is not reliable to begin with, especially when someone tweeted without backup from reputable sources such as Billboard and Pollstar. These two insisted the two previously stated publications are reliable, even though the content of their articles consists of unreliable data.


 * I would also like to emphasize that these two users like to include unreliable sources to an article. And when someone tries to correct them, they do not listen and insist their point of views instead. You can check their Talk page regarding that, qnd witness how many complaints they receive about their manners in Wikipedia. Kenquenito (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Kenquenito Your behaviour is unacceptable as well with personal attacks against Lightlylove on 2 occassions as seen, and in fact you have been warned before on such. Regardless of, who is right and who is wrong, edit warring and also personal attacks is incorrect and unacceptable behaviour. In addition, if you have strong evidence that and  are sockpuppets of Lightlylove, please fill a report at WP:SPI otherwise these are considered as false accusation.  —  Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  10:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If that’s the case, I apologize for such behavior. But the main topic here is about edit warring, which I have my reasons why I undo their edits—because of misinformation. Anyone can make fake data and present it in a believable manner. That’s what we are trying to prevent here. @Lightlylove and @Lililolol keep insisting that their sources are reliable despite the fact that the sites they provided have gathered their information from Touring Data. Again, the main topic here is edit warring. I think we should stick to that issue. Kenquenito (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * i have nothing to do with the user @Lililolol and @Multimilkp in fact, i didn't even know the later, and i always use reliable sources, i've read and learned WP:Source Guideline very well and carefully, that's why i get offended when you say i have problems with sources, cause all i try to do is help WP improve with reliable updates, that's why you see me changing many things that are considered misinformation by WP standards, those sources based themselves on Touring Data but that's not a bad thing cause Touring Data base themselves from official information, Wikipedia's Source Guidiline clarifies situations like this very well. Lightlylove (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Protected. I don't see any real discussion of this on the talk page.  However I will agree with Kenquenito that media using Touring Data as their source cannot be regarded as reliable - TD is a WordPress site that aggregates reports from other sources, including artist representatives.  It may or may not be correct, but it's effectively original research.  User:Lightlylove and  User:Lililolol would do well to remember this when the protection expires, and if they continue using those sources further action may be taken. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right and correct about Touring Data, i agree with you on that, but not every information they put out is wrong, WP talks about unreliable sources reporting true information sometimes like for example sources that are considered unreliable like allkpop, k-popstarz, kbizoom etc etc bring their information from reliable sources like The Korea Times, Naver and Chosun, so if a reliable source uses the information from Touring Data means it should be somehow true, that's why i thought it wouldn't been an issue putting that statement on the Born Pink World Tour article, now i' m seeing it from a different perspective and i totally apologize for it, i should have seek out for the source Touring Data used before putting the information on the article. Lightlylove (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * However you also ignored the fact that without real confirmation from a reliable source first any statement can't be written in Wikipedia, he said that the SpiceWorld Tour 1998 is the highest-grossing girl group tour of all-time but there's no official news/confirmation for that, only fan news, so he was misleading. Lightlylove (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say two things: first, the sockpuppet allegation is completely false. Second, if @Kenquenito bothered enough to explain briefly on his edit summary we wouldn't be here. Because generally, the Korea Times is reliable, and I don't think any editor would think twice before citing it. And anyway, the Spice Girls Tour never revealed how much they grossed, so isn't he also doing original research as well? Aslo, please, @Black Kite don't put me on the same page as @Lightlylovet, because I immediately stopped the edits when the first user Kenquenito brought my attention to his detailed explanation on the talk page although I didn't participated in it.Lililolol (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, though - whether the Korea Times is reliable source is irrelevant - their story says "According to Touring Data..." and TD cannot be guaranteed to be reliable itself. Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite True I don't disagree here. My point was that I at first didn't question such a source until I saw the talk page, which is why I stopped reverting. Lililolol (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User:220.236.126.177 reported by User:Doctorhawkes (Result: Both editors blocked and page protected)
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: User has a valid viewpoint, but has been unable to provide any source to support it. Has some discussion on article talk but still unable to provide any source. All notices to user talk page have been deleted. Has reverted 9 times. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * for a week The IP for 2 weeks due to previous history of edit warring; Doctorhawkes for 24 hours ... 3RRNO did not cover those reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:62.165.217.142 reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1154577811 by Dudley Miles (talk) That doesn't mean you can violate the First Amendment"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1154470815 by Dudley Miles (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1154418668 by Sirfurboy (talk) You can't WP:CENSOR other users"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 1154416602 by 62.165.217.142 (talk) WP:NOTFORUM"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 1154547436 by 62.165.217.142 (talk) Stop edit warring."
 * 3)   "Undid revision 1154548899 by Sirfurboy (talk)This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for irrelevant speculations"

Comments:

Editor has minimal edits but is trying to place a disruptive discussion about a hypothetical on the article talk page that has nothing to do with improving the page. I left a message in the 3RR warning on their talk page about asking general questions at the teahouse. Despite the warning, they have reverted material in again. (Note the last diff was an error by the editor, so look at the history. The edsum was an attempt to tell the IP what they were doing wrong. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not to say the editor isn't being disruptive. It has been seven hours since their last edit; if he resumes again certainly some action (a protection could work just as well) will be necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:148.252.141.75 reported by User:Technopat (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Updating image and removed repeated text, it already says the UK is a leading wind energy power."
 * 2)  "Removing repeated text"
 * 3)  "Removing repeated text"
 * 4)  "/* Education */"
 * 5)  "Economy of London"
 * 1)  "Economy of London"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I updated an image and removed repeated text in the energy section. I did nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.141.75 (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what I've done wrong? Somebody reverted my edits due to POV, I asked why on my talk page and they righlty told me what was POV. I removed the POV, and updated the leading image, changed the education sector section slightly to remove not needed links, and removed repeated text in the energy sector section. I'm a bit shocked at why my edits are being reverted and I'm being targeted in such way. --148.252.141.75 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * – User:2economist2 blocked indef per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/148.252.141.75 due to behavioral resemblance, IP blocked one week. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:68.129.18.181 reported by User:Doncsecz~enwiki (Result: Blocked)
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:

edit war in the articles Jesús Franco and Lina Romay. It keeps deleting the sourced editings. Probably a Italo-Spanish movie fan vandal. Doncsecztalk 07:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * maybe User:68.129.18.181=User:HerbLightman? Doncsecztalk 07:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * – IP blocked one month as an apparent sock of User:HerbLightman. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Crows Yang reported by User:Editorkamran (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 03:14, 14 May 2023 - Don't delete contents supported by reliable sources!
 * 2) 02:50, 14 May 2023‎ -‎  Undid revision 1154644910 by Extorc (talk)
 * 3) 05:04, 13 May 2023‎ - Then let's see what's gonna happen. I won't let it become your private property!!!
 * 4) 03:28, 13 May 2023‎ - Undid revision 1154516418 by Editorkamran (talk)

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:

Frequently threatening in edit summaries that he won't stop the edit war. Editorkamran (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Crows Yang is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Sino-Soviet border conflict unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Masrialltheway reported by User:Sarah SchneiderCH (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added the sources for the presence of these haplogroups in both ancient and modern Egyptians, which is exactly what is stated in the caption, i.e., "Two haplogroups, E1b1b and J, that are carried by both ancient and modern Egyptians", and which is exactly what the sources are cited for. I'm against citation clutter in the caption, when it is taken directly from the article's content, but here are the sources anyway."
 * 2)  "There is no speculation, I don't even know what you think is being speculative here, please don't be ambiguous. I'll add the source for their existence in both ancient and modern Egyptians in my next edit, even though the citation clutter is unnecessary, and I discussed this already in the summaries. Please don't ignore what I'm detailing in my summaries and simply revert. I'll add the sources anyway in the next edit."
 * 3)  "@Sarah: The entire study is about it, and it states the origin of both E-M35 and E-M78, because data from Noerhteast Africa was not available in earlier studies. As to the presence of E1b1b and J in both Ancient and Modern Egyptian, That is taken directly from the content of the article, we can use the sources in the article, but that is not necessary in a caption, please refer to my edit summaries (Parts A&B&C) below, I addressed every point you raised in detail."
 * 4)  "Restored unexplained removal of content. Part A: 1) That the haplogroups E1b1b and J are carried by both ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians is taken directly from the studies in the article. 2) Image captions should follow the article's content, relate the main subject, and generally should not be cluttered by too many citations when the statement is apparent from the article’s content. 3) Cruciani (2007) was cited specifically for the E-M78 subclade of E1b1b, which discusses... [see Part B]"
 * 5)  "Part B: 3) Cruciani (2007) was cited specifically for the E-M78 subclade of E1b1b, which discusses its origin in detail in this 2007 study, Sarah is talking in her edit summaries about the parents E-M215 and E-M35. 4) Sarah removed the cited Cruciani (2007), which discusses the origin of E-M78, and replaced it by Cruciani (2004), and said in her summaries that the caption was “attributing facts”, this is not a good thing to do, but I will assume good faith. [see Parts A&C]"
 * 6)  "Part C: 5) This is not an article about the Middle East or North Africa in general, the general distribution is not the focus here so as to make it the sole or main point in this image caption, the caption should be about the main subject of the article. This distribution is to be relegated to the specific haplogroup articles or the Middle East article, it is also obvious from the images. The content is sound and satisfies WP:CAP and should not be removed. [see Parts A&B of this edit summary]"
 * 7)  "This should be described properly instead of just saying that it is a “predominantly European haplogroup”. The study states that H is: “the most common mtDNA lineage in Europe and is found also in parts of present-day Africa and western Asia.” The other source is not a study, it is flashy journalism used as a poor justification for throwing in the phrase “European heritage”. “Shocking truth” flashy journalism does not belong here. I also added the presence of H in modern Egyptians."
 * 8)  "The study does not simply say “European in origin”, here is what the study actually says, which was removed, and I will also restore the statement about the presence of U5 in modern Egyptian Berbers, which was removed, I believe accidentally. Also, again, flashy journalism does not belong here, which is the second source cited here (i.e., independent dot co dot uk)."
 * 9)  "Clarifications and precision. First off, I objected to this entire addition a while back on the talk page, but I won’t remove it unless I get agreement. I’ll focus on at least making it precise and slightly more concise. The parent M35 itself is not the dominant clade in Egypt, its subclade M78 is, so the presence of M35 in Omotic pop. is not the a focal point here; this is not an article about M35 or Omotic pop.. The PN2 mutation has nothing to do with Egyptians (table 2 in the source)."
 * 10)  "/* 2018 study of Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht */ “Famous people on Eupedia” is not a source. Eupedia, which is not a source itself, links to a forum, which is the most horrible thing to do to the reader here. Forums are not sources. The article seems to have attracted spam. Please keep the nonsensical black-white dichotomy fights away from this article."
 * 11)  "Keita did not “analyse” anything, did not “use” any algorithms, is not conducting a “study”, and therefore he cannot “conclude” anything; presenting Keita’s commentary as a “study” with these misleading words is terribly misleading. Keita is commenting as usual and sneaking in his semi-Afrocentric two cents as he usually does. This “Ideas about Race” piece adds nothing more than Keita’s personal two cents. Please refer to comments in this talk section"
 * 12)  "/* 2020 study of Takabuti */ Removing another journalism source that does not belong here, and is superfluously cited anyway."
 * 1)  "/* 2020 study of Takabuti */ Removing another journalism source that does not belong here, and is superfluously cited anyway."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello, there is no edit-warring on my part. Here is what happened. reverted an edit I made earlier, wherein I restored her unexplained removal of content and I wrote three edit summaries (diff1, diff2), diff3) explaining in detail why the content should remain (in particular that the source says exactly what it is cited for in the image caption, and that the first statement in the caption is taken directly from the article's content, and therefore citation clutter can be avoided in the caption). Sarah removed it again (diff), ignoring my explanations in my summaries, I restored and tried to explain again (diff), but Sarah reverted again (diff), ignoring what I said again, so I told her that I will add the sources (diff), and I add them (diff). But Sarah, came right ahead to file for edit-warring, even though there was no edit-warring attitude on my part whatsoever. I explained and added the sources when I saw that she is ignoring my explanations. In fact, Sarah kept reverting and ignoring what I'm saying in a typical bad attitude. So, I'm actually here to ask for her behavior to be looked at; and if this is to be considered a case of gaming the system on her part? I had as much of a reason to report Sarah, if this is even proper in this case, but this is my first interaction with her and I interacted in good faith; I assumed good faith and assumed the assumption of good faith, which is obvious from my attempts to explain in detail in the edit summaries. Please also note that in the section "Diffs of the user's reverts" above, 1, 2, and 3 are relevant, and under 4, only the first 3 are relevant from earlier, they are the single edit made over three edit summaries from earlier, which I'm referring to above, because I wanted to explain in detail in the edit summary, and I'm providing all of these diffs in this comment. Masrialltheway (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That's what talk pages are for. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You have not explained how your edits do not violate the Three revert rule. You have just tried to make a case for why you think your edits should be exempt from that rule. So far I'm not seeing anything that even comes close to being one of the limited exemptions explained at that policy. Note that "thinking you are right" is not one of them. Also, please note that spending more than half of your defense talking about the other editor's actions is not going to help your case. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 23:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Did I break the 3RR? I stopped at exactly three reverts (diff, diff, diff), providing the sources in the last one. I had to mention the other user only because I really feel like a have been dragged into something while maintaining good faith in trying to resolve an issue. Or are all the above diffs listed as "reverts"? In which case, How? These are not things that were added or edits just made and I reverted or removed, I was merely editing, which normally involves checking certain things to see if they are well sourced, I removed some bad citation from journalism and a forum (because the article is about the scientific evidence not journalism and forums), fixed certain statements, and added well sourced content at the same time in the same edits, I don't believe that is reverting. Am I completely lost in regard to how this works? Masrialltheway (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that this (diff 4.1 in the list above) is the first revert:


 * "Restored unexplained removal of content. ..."


 * The 8 consecutive edits that followed include comments that make it clear that you were trying to restore the state of the article to an earlier version, though it is unclear to me specifically which version you are attempting to revert to. Per WP:3RR, the consecutive edits with diffs numbered 4.1 through 4.9 count as one revert. Diffs 1, 2 and 3 are attempts to revert to essentially the same content as existed after the edit marked 4.9, as at that point you were exchanging reverts with . Note that 3RR states: The fact that the edits you were reversing in the initial sequence were not (only) those performed by  does not matter. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the biggest problem here is not that you have an "edit warring attitude", as I believe you put it, but that you are abusing the edit summary while forcing your changes into the article, instead of talking with other editors on the article's Talk page to reach consensus on the change or changes before making them, even after you are aware that other editors disagree with them. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 02:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you for clarifying, things are becoming more clear to me now, it seems that Sarah SchneiderCH was paying more attention to this than I did; I was focused solely on resolving the issue. I'm not trying at all to argue my way out of the 3RR here, if I broke it then it was by oversight on my part due to how quickly the last exchange happened, and I have no argument out of it, what I'm only arguing for here is that I'm not edit-warring at all, that's not my attitude, I try my best to explain in detail any edit that I make. I resort to the talk page, but the issue was just whether or not to add these sources in the caption. I should have been more careful, or added the sources right away in a single edit. In fact, in the second revert in my exchange with Sarah SchneiderCH, I was just asking her to wait until I add the sources in my next edit and explicitly asked her not to revert, which is a very bad and uncalculated move on my part, because Sarah SchneiderCH cleverly didn't wait and reverted, if she had waited, the last two could have counted as one revert. I don't know if that counts for something. Masrialltheway (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you may be trying to enforce your own perspective, which goes against the rules here. Wikipedia is not a platform for imposing personal opinions or tailoring articles to individual preferences. The sources you provided in your submission are not scientific or universally accepted, and they do not align with the existing content. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is absolutely false, every single bit of it. These cited sources (1, 2, 3) are scientific genetic studies. They absolutely corroborate the statements they are directly cited for; they are cited thus: “Two haplogroups, E1b1b and J, that are carried by both ancient and modern Egyptians.[1], [2], [3] The subclade E-M78 of E1b1b is suggested to have originated in Northeast Africa in the area of Egypt and Libya, and is more predominant in Egypt.[3]" Please stop, this is a bad behavior. You also just reverted again a few hours ago (diff). I really have to ask again for this user's behavior to be looked at. Masrialltheway (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Your content dispute with another editor belongs at Talk:Genetic history of Egypt, not here at WP:EWN. Unless and until you are able to reach consensus with other editors on the content you are trying to add to the article, that content must not be added to the article. Consensus does not require unanimity, but you must actually make an effort to achieve consensus with other editors, not simply force your changes into the article. You are not doing so at this time. It appears that returned the content of the article to a version that reflected the consensus prior to the changes you were edit warring over, which is appropriate under these circumstances. Sarah SchneiderCH did not exceed 3RR. Also, your comment about that editor "cleverly" reverting your edit yesterday implies that you are failing to assume good faith, and your claim that her actions caused you to exceed 3RR shows that you still don't understand why we are having this conversation. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that you also have a responsibility to participate in the discussion of these edits on the article's Talk page now that Masrialltheway has taken the discussion there. You may not simply try to preserve the current version without participating in a discussion that could potentially lead to a new consensus (which may or may not reflect your personal opinion on the matter). You could have tried to redirect the discussion to the Talk page previously, rather than merely reverting the changes. I don't see that you did so until yesterday's edit war was already underway. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * per above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Firstgold reported by User:FlightTime (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)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Slash (musician)."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Slash (musician)."
 * 3)   "/* May 2023 */ + Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:69.115.104.232 reported by User:Spiralthebandicoot (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * There may be slow edit warring between several editors, but it's not limited to this IP editor and the IP editor hasn't violated 3RR. The red box at Edit warring says that An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert so sequential edits without any intervening edits count as a single revert. This means that this sequence of edits is one revert and this is the second. On List of Cartoon Network Studios productions the first diff doesn't appear to be a revert, so there's two reverts there as well. They also haven't edited since this warning was placed. I suggest using the talk pages and providing sources that support the content being reinserted rather than relying on what looks like WP:OR. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Editorkamran reported by User:Crows Yang (Result: OP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:54, 13 May 2023 - enough sources were provided on talk page to establish that this was a Soviet victory
 * 2) 00:57, 13 May 2023  - added multiple sources discussed on talk page
 * 3) 04:45, 13 May 2023 - Not gonna happen
 * 4) 13:03, 4 May 2023 - Sources treat it as a single conflict
 * 5) 20:46, 3 May 2023 - Reverted 2 edits by 75.102.211.45 (talk) to last revision by DestructibleTimes

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:

Frequently deleting other editors' edits despite that fact that the deleted contents were supported by reliable sources


 * Note This appears to be a retaliatory report in return for the one made above. Editorkamran has not edited the article since that report was made, and their own edits were likely scrutanised by the closing admin. I recommend that Crows Yang close this thread themselves as this is a content dispute that should be discussed on the talk page; this kind of tit-for-tat report is disruptive. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Crows Yang for 31 hours. After being warned at the discussion above, their next act was to post this meritless retaliatory filing.  That wasn't the brightest of ideas. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Правда ли это reported by User:Very Average Editor (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  fourth revert
 * 2)  third revert
 * 3)  I re removed the content the first user had, agreeing it was spammy and non encyclopedic
 * 4)  original revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - this is on their talk page and not the article, but shows they are not interested in discussion

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

Comments: The user is adding what appears to be spam, as well as biased "warnings" about other small organizations. They refuse to engage outside of reverts. Very Average Editor (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Spam only account. Courcelles (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Spdrcr19 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Partial Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverting to when the page has factual sourced content of a living person.  Previous content was not sourced and made up"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1155037529 by JML1148 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Revert due to lack of sources and facts. Other posters are vandalizing page"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Partially blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Thomediter reported by User:IceWelder (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1155067851 by IceWelder (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1155066990 by IceWelder (talk)I disagree"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1154958823 by IceWelder (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been warned for disruptive editing several times in the past and repeatedly engaged in edit warring in recent weeks, including at Eurovision Song Contest 2024, Module:Political party/G, Module:Political party/R, and several related modules and articles.

In the most recent case, the user is trying to force their version of an infobox parameter over the established version (which carries an explanatory comment), saying only "I disagree". When asked to seek consensus as per WP:BRD, the user made another revert without any comment, therein breaking WP:3RR. IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand, I will stop, I apologize for my unprofessional behaviour. thomediter
 * Also per above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Daviddayag reported by User:ZaperaWiki44 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:3RR violation over the lead picture for M31 despite criticism and the consensus per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. It is also very probable that he is not even here to contribute to Wikipedia but instead rather makes self-promotion his own image(s) while disregarding any accuracy concerns. Regards— ZaperaWiki44 (✉/Contribs) 11:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my mistake because I did not know how to create properly a report. Is it possible to make a new one now? Regards— ZaperaWiki44 (✉/Contribs) 11:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the declined notice just above tells you what to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I advise using Twinkle to create a new report, as it automates a lot of it for you and isn't likely to be malformed. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tried to use it (per tag) but it did not allow me to edit 3 boxes for unknown reason, but it may be because the user only did only 3 reverts within 48 hours (in which it should be 4 reverts within 48 h I guess) as I did realised right now. So it may be why Twinkle did not work in the first place. BTW, it is already said in the later report. Regards— ZaperaWiki44 (✉/Contribs) 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 4 reverts within 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Daviddayag reported by User:ZaperaWiki44 (Result: 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Decided to remake the report due to it being malformed

Possible WP:3RR violation over the lead picture for M31 despite given warnings and the overwehlming consensus per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. It is also very probable that he is not even here to contribute to Wikipedia but instead rather makes self-promotion his own image(s) while disregarding any accuracy concerns. Regards— ZaperaWiki44 (✉/Contribs) 12:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that Daviddayag does not deserve sanctions, but he has not violated 3RR. One of the reverts listed above occurred on April 27.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Daviddayag is warned. He may be blocked if he reverts again at Andromeda Galaxy without first obtaining a consensus for his change on a talk page. So far he does not have consensus at the astronomy wikiproject. His edits to the Andromeda Galaxy article do seem to qualify as self-promotion of his own images. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Juan.Alvarez6 reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: Partial blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1155329720 by Frukko (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1155328955 by Frukko (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1155319735 by Frukko (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1155318320 by Frukko (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1155316019 by Frukko (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1155314246 by Frukko (talk) let's talk about it in the talk section. I don't understand your point deleting referenced information."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1155298255 by Frukko (talk) The references given are valid"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1155046489 by Frukko (talk)"
 * 9)  "The user Frukko deleted good references."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1155314246 by Frukko (talk) let's talk about it in the talk section. I don't understand your point deleting referenced information."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1155298255 by Frukko (talk) The references given are valid"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1155046489 by Frukko (talk)"
 * 4)  "The user Frukko deleted good references."
 * 1)  "The user Frukko deleted good references."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * (partial) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Frukko reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: Partial blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * (partial) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Vasltunnma and User:Historianengineer reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

Users being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Note the ten +/-488 edits

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * User talk:Vasltunnma - first edit to user's talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] The two are discussing somewhat on talk:Caput Mundi Adakiko (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
 * Added ANEW diffs Adakiko (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Added ANEW diffs Adakiko (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Added ANEW diffs Adakiko (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

Not otherwise involved. Adakiko (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:WMrapids reported by User:Alejandro Basombrio (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - →‎Signatories
 * 2)  -
 * 3)  - Deletion of previous sources that don't fit with his POV as he calls them "questionable sources"
 * 4)  - Removal of word as WP:LABEL

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Re-adding of "far-right" despite violating WP:SOURCECOUNTING, WP:LABEL and at some level WP:NPOV

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I tried to contact with him on his Talk page, yet he deletes my comments from there and accuses me of being a "Single Purpose account".

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

Comments:

User perpetrating the "edit war" wants to keep unnecessary sources in the article just for support his claim of "Vox" being "far-right" although the article of that party describes it "right-wing to far-right".


 * User has already been previously reported as a single purpose account that has whitewashed articles involving right-wing politics and has introduced poor sources to justify their edits. Hopefully those reviewing this can see this has nothing to do with my POV and only has to do with the quality of sources the user tried to use for controversial edits, including opinion articles and an "expatriate" news blog "Olive Press". Also, the charge regarding the Wikipedia essay WP:SOURCECOUNTING is bogus as the user is projecting their own behavior onto me (i.e. listing "Olive Press" and opinion articles to justify their own edits). Other users have also noticed this user's behavior, so also take that into account. Many of my edits were performed to clean up following the user's dubious edits. --WMrapids (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * First, WP:FOC. Little has to do my history of reports when in this case we are disccuting about your edits, not mine. It's false that I'm a SPA (I participate in the creation of SVG, PNG for the Wikimedia Commons project and have been editing in the English Wikipedia like for two years)
 * About the sources I used to make the point of VOX as a "populist right" party instead of a "far-right" party, I added them to avoid an counter the WP:CHERRYPICKING you committed to call it far-right, despite multiple specialists calling it a right-wing party. The sources I added are already used in both the English Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia article about Vox. Before I added them, I didn't know about the WP:LABEL or the WP:SOURCECOUNTING, that's why I retract and I see a preferable option to delete the term since it is very conflictive.
 * "Other users have noticed this user's behavior" only one user has reverted my edit in that article and still violates the WP:LABEL rule (it's highly debatable to label Riva-Aguero as "fascist" since most sources describe him as "conservative" or "reactionary").
 * As I told you before, focus now on the content. Don't avoid me messaging you on Talk Page. While some reliable source call Vox as far-right, other reliable sources call it right-wing. In this case, I reverted the adjective to avoid [WP:LABEL]] Articles that mention the "party Vox" (the exact words) mostly avoid using labels, calling it "Spanish political party Vox" or simply "Political Party Vox". Some of them call it "national-conservative party Vox" or "Spanish nationalist party VOX". Directly all the pages that call it "far-right political party Vox" are the ones you edited while adding information of the Madrid Charter. Stop claiming you don't have a POV. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your editing history is completely relevant in this discussion and other users (including myself) have attempted to assume good faith with you. Vox has been widely described as a far-right party and José de la Riva-Agüero y Osma literally created the Peruvian Fascist Brotherhood, so again, please don't project your feelings regarding POV on me. In an attempt to make things go smoothly in the future, I suggest you read WP:BRD. WMrapids (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a 3RR violation here, but I do see an empty talk page. I suggest you start a discussion there rather than argue in edit summaries. If you find yourselves at an impasse you can invite other people to join the discussion at WP:3O or by starting an WP:RfC. – bradv  02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I told you before, focus now on the content. Don't avoid me messaging you on Talk Page. While some reliable source call Vox as far-right, other reliable sources call it right-wing. In this case, I reverted the adjective to avoid [WP:LABEL]] Articles that mention the "party Vox" (the exact words) mostly avoid using labels, calling it "Spanish political party Vox" or simply "Political Party Vox". Some of them call it "national-conservative party Vox" or "Spanish nationalist party VOX". Directly all the pages that call it "far-right political party Vox" are the ones you edited while adding information of the Madrid Charter. Stop claiming you don't have a POV. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your editing history is completely relevant in this discussion and other users (including myself) have attempted to assume good faith with you. Vox has been widely described as a far-right party and José de la Riva-Agüero y Osma literally created the Peruvian Fascist Brotherhood, so again, please don't project your feelings regarding POV on me. In an attempt to make things go smoothly in the future, I suggest you read WP:BRD. WMrapids (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a 3RR violation here, but I do see an empty talk page. I suggest you start a discussion there rather than argue in edit summaries. If you find yourselves at an impasse you can invite other people to join the discussion at WP:3O or by starting an WP:RfC. – bradv  02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * – bradv  02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Sagatorium reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: Blocked from both articles for a week)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At Jartavius Martin:

At Template:Washington Commanders roster

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:

As a bit of context, cornerbacks, safeties, and nickelbacks are all considered defensive backs. Martin's role is not defined yet but Sagatorium is repeatedly trying to be more specific with the player's position than what has been offered up by the team. Sagatorium specified Martin's position as cornerback, despite Martin being the only player with a position of "DB" (short for defensive back) on the team's website. Martin played both cornerback and safety in college, which is a big part of why his position is yet to be determined, the team has to figure out where they want him. In Sagatorium's to Martin's article, they cherry picked a link which listed the player solely as a cornerback, whereas numerous other sources refer to him as a DB. Even the pick itself, at the draft, was announced as defensive back.

Sagatorium has been adding speculative information, often in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, for quite some time now. It's worse during the NFL off-season (now) with rosters constantly changing. It doesn't help that most of the time they revert others without using an edit summary. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * from both articles. User's attitude in talk page discussions didn't help his case. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Elttaruuu reported by User:Maxen Embry (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (none provided)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (no link provided)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (no link provided)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: (no link provided)

Comments:


 * for two weeks from editing this specific article only; warned against casting aspersions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Amoakgusd reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Return to slow-warring same edit that led to an earlier block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2A02:2F0F:F003:4A00:D47B:578E:6638:D225 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: /64 range blocked one week)
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:

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

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

Comments:


 * /64 range blocked one week. This probably could have also been reported at WP:AIV. The range had already been blocked a couple days ago for 31h, and the disruption is at other articles as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Mitrayasna reported by User:SilverLocust (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * "Undid revision 1155514341 by Joortje1 (talk)You do not have good intentions. There is no problem with the text. You are just waging an editorial war. You have no reason for your work"
 * "Undid revision 1155514390 by Joortje1 (talk)You do not have good intentions. There is no problem with the text. You are just waging an editorial war. You have no reason for your work"
 * "Undid revision 1155515186 by Joortje1 (talk)You do not have good intentions. There is no problem with the text. You are just waging an editorial war. You have no reason for your work"
 * "Undid revision 1155439991 by Joortje1 (talk)Content with an authentic source cannot be deleted arbitrarily"
 * "Undid revision 1155272178 by Joortje1 (talk)Do not delete useful and resourceful information"
 * (Among other instances at that page and at Animation. The above edits are just those that show a WP:3RR violation.)

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:


 * Posting comment: This is part of wider edit warring behavior by Mitrayasna on Animation and Early history of animation regarding an image of an ancient Iranian cup (with disputed caption and relevance) that Mistrayasna added to the page. Mitrayasna keeps reverting edits of various users to maintain that image and text relating to it. (Note that User:Joortje1 also violated WP:3RR in the incident listed in the diffs above.) There has been significant discussion at Talk:Animation trying to resolve the content dispute, but Mitrayasna has been intransigent in insisting upon the image and text remaining, over the reasoned objections of, , , and myself , which Mitrayasna has dismissed as false. (Disclosure: While I have not edited Early history of animation, I have made four edits on Animation, starting a few weeks ago. My was to clarify the misleading caption of the image after checking the citations, and to urge Mitrayasna and others to stop edit warring.  my  were reverts to maintain the WP:StatusQuo from before the dispute arose while discussion continued. I proposed this first on the talk page, but Mitrayasna refused  the reasons others were giving were false. (I thought WP:StatusQuo was a policy, but it is actually an essay.) Most recently, I added a Template:Disputed inline tag  that Mitrayasna inappropriately removed .) — SilverLocust (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been no 3RR violation by Mistrayasna at Early history of animation. Mistrayasna reverted 3x not 4x. Some of the diffs listed above are part of a series of consecutive edits and do not count as multiple reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Posting comment: For a better understanding of these conflicts, I request the administrators to go to the discussion page of the animation article first and look there. At first, there were many discussions. Then user SilverLocust made an edit, both user and I accepted that edit and the edit war was over for a month. Then, without any discussion, the photo and text were deleted by the user  due to its length. I solved the long problem, but they did not accept it. I said let's go back to the previous conditions and then discuss, they refused. On the Early history of animation page, something similar happened. with a shorter period of time Mitrayasna (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing he did on that page was that he accepted my text with his own correction, but removed its source so that in the future there would be a way to remove it completely. And when I returned my second source, which was the most important source, it started an edit war on the Early history of animation page.  Mitrayasna (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When you're reverting several other people, often more than once, over a couple of days, it doesn't matter what you said or did on the talk page or that you did not violate 3RR with any single series. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User:148.252.128.49 reported by User:CandyScythe (Result: blocked for 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "COULD YOU PLEASE STOP REVERTING IT BACK!!!????"
 * 2)  "CAN YOU NOT REVERT IT BACK!?"
 * 3)  "This article had no sources. And this one was supposed to be redirected to the main one A FEW YEARS AGO!"
 * 4)  "This article is now being redirected permanently."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of TV series produced by Walt Disney Studios."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note: Same person as currently blocked User:85.255.236.206 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyScythe (talk • contribs) 07:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * (I originally partially blocked from the one article for one month, but then I saw the editing from the other IP address, and decided that wasn't enough.) JBW (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Noloader reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

This is part of multiple edit wars from user on two pages as well as a WP:CIVIL issue. User has been attempting to introduce DOB and conviction information into an already contention page at Jeremy Dewitte. Despite being reverted and told that the source cannot be used, user still reverts, one time saying that I must be Jeremy Dewitte or that my account is fake (which I assure you is not). Warned user on their user page under an existing edit warring notice they received earlier today for another page (Null pointer). Subject still reverted despite the warning, including an edit summary accusing me of being a "lazy user" (twice including doing so on a previous revert). Note that I likely have 3RR on this page myself but the addition of the source is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY ("Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person"), an exemption of 3RR (please correct me if I am mistaken). Relevant discussion with another editor about ANEW on the talk page of Jeremy Dewitte as I did not attempt to discuss on the talk page. However, editor is warring on another page as well and not engaging in a discussion on that talk page started by another editor (and also reverting on that page twice since that talk page discussion was started).
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Samygeosquid reported by User:Zefr (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is only a small size change"
 * 2)  "Only the squids length"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Colossal squid."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user was edit-warring today as a mobile IP, created this username, and began edit-warring again over an unsourced, impossible dimension for the topic animal; 5x in total. Suggest temp block to alter behavior. Zefr (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked the named account as this is borderline vandalism, and also blocked Special:contributions/2A02:C7E:2E86:6300:0:0:0:0/64 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

A bunch from the large 2a02::/16 pools have been analogously disupting: since Febriuary. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:MiltenR reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks from the article namespace)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Y-DNA */Added content and reliable relevant sources"
 * 2)  "/* mtDNA */Added content and reliable relevant sources"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1155537401 by Jingiby (talk) - good revision, I will do it again later"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1155536719 by StephenMacky1 (talk) - reverting edit that deleted relevant information with relevant reliable sources"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1155457342 by Jingiby (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1155454093 by Jingiby (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1155453545 by Jingiby (talk)"
 * 8)  "Added content - reliable relevant sources"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1155453545 by Jingiby (talk)"
 * 2)  "Added content - reliable relevant sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring."
 * 2)   "/* May 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello. The editor in question added unreliably sourced and pro-fringe content, for which they were reverted, but they proceeded to restore it multiple times. The whole affair actually began on 17th May and continued until today. The reverts appeared to be indiscriminate too, since an edit removing unsourced material was reverted. I clarified the matter on their talk page, but it had no effect. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The sources are reliable - Bulgarian National Radio, NIH
 * (National Library of Medicine) -
 * National Center for Blotechnology information in US, etc. I revert edits that delete relevant information with relevant reliable sources MiltenR (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * from editing articles directly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:100F:B138:3137:DC50:7E4C:C9D2:C65E reported by User:Partofthemachine (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has been edit warring to remove the term "pseudoscience" from Creation Museum despite multiple warnings. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Siteblocked for aggressive POV pushing/proselytizing.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:151.19.24.157 reported by User:Maxxhiato (Result: Article semi-protected for 3 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1155775927 by Maxxhiato (talk) changes require sources, see talk page (wikipedia is not source for wikipedia)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1155758358 by Maxxhiato (talk) changes require sources and only if necessary discussions"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Talk page HRE */ new section"

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

Comments:

This IP and others from Italy (151.37.37.64 & 151.57.25.145) are changing the Holy Roman Empire infobox map. I tried to redirect them to the talk page & archive, which explains why their particular map was not chosen. I hope I'm doing this right. I have no idea. <em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;color:#FF6699">Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * changes require sources; wikipedia is not source for wikipedia. I have tried in every way to make you understand that there are some problems between the map and the description of the map based on the sources cited.--151.19.24.157 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * for 3 weeks. This was really the more desirable option, given that it cannot be determined whether the Wind IPs (all of which, as noted, resolve to different regions of Italy) are the same editor or not, not at least without checkuser. The article hasn't been semi'ed in five years or so, yes, but since the last protection was for two weeks I went with three this time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sorry. Should the old map be restored? I haven't really done anything like this before. <em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;color:#FF6699">Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, you can do that. It's not full-protected, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Tayeb188 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked 24h No block was necessary)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "since we have agreed in the talk page about Massinissa and Massylii"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1155733987 by Gog the Mild (talk)"
 * 3)  "added the Massylii who have fought in this battle with the command of Massinissa"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Massylii role in the battle */ add"
 * 2)   "/* Massylii role in the battle */ expand"
 * 3)   "/* Massylii role in the battle */ Reply"
 * 4)   "/* Massylii role in the battle */ Reply"
 * 5)   "/* Massylii role in the battle */ Reply"

Comments:

In addition to the three diffs listed above (assembled by Twinkle's wizard), they added the same content two further times on the 17th and 18th of May. I'm WP:INVOLVED, but I told them yesterday that I would report them if they reinstated the edit without talk page consensus, and they did just that so here we are. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 09:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Noting that this report can be closed without action - the user has indicated on their talk page that they don't have consensus, so hopefully that will be an end of it. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unblocked per above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Samyakta2255 and User:ShahNman reported by User:Kj cheetham (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

These two users seem to have been going back and forth on this article since around 30th April. No response to my talk page messages at all. Glancing at their other contribution may be similar situation on other articles, but I've only looked at this one myself. The diffs of user reverts I listed are just examples, not all of them. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:BangJan1999 reported by User:Katakana546 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everton_Fox&oldid=1156253421

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everton_Fox&diff=1156254866&oldid=1156253421
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everton_Fox&diff=1156256874&oldid=1156254866
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everton_Fox&diff=1156258429&oldid=1156256874

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katakana546

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

Comments:


 * ., this is an abusive report. You tagged the Fox article for speedy deletion per WP:A7. removed the tag with an edit summary explaining their reasoning, which they were entitled to do. You restored the tag with an edit summary that confused the removal of tags by page creators vs. other editors. BangJan1999 removed it again with an edit summary responding to your misunderstanding of policy. You then PRODded the article. You were the one who disrupted the article. BangJan1999, regardless of anything else, reverted only twice. The second diff above is one of your reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Enmanuelgac reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked from Article space)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Royal Caribbean International


 * 1)  "Undid revision 1156328775 by Czello (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1156328404 by Czello (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1156316562 by Murgatroyd49 (talk)"
 * 4)  "update"


 * Royal Caribbean Group


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


 * TUI Cruises


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

Comments:

User has been asked to discuss on talk page per WP:BRD several times, yet they never have. In fact they only have 2 talk page posts out of nearly 1000 edits. Similar edit warring is taking place across several other articles, such as TUI Cruises. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * indefinitely blocked Enmanuelgac from Article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Joanneplums reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to::
 * 18:54, 21 May 2023 by 2A00:23C5:F184:501:8C55:C825:3E89:16CA remove cited text
 * 05:41, 22 March 2023 version without photo in infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 09:10, 22 May 2023 by Joanneplums remove cited text
 * 2) 09:17, 22 May 2023 by Joanneplums remove cited text
 * 3) 09:18, 22 May 2023 by Joanneplums remove photo in infobox
 * 4) 13:47-48, 22 May 2023‎ by 2A00:23C5:F184:501:9D8E:8AA8:CDCC:C0EF remove cited text and photo in infobox

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Joanneplums, 2A00:23C5:F184:501:9D8E:8AA8:CDCC:C0EF -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Semi'ed for a few days. Not impressed with the logged out socking, but maybe someone can get them to talk and not just revert.  Courcelles (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2001:638:A004:F000:192:44:85:23 reported by User:Scope creep (Result: Page protected)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

Comments: An entry was posted at the coin noticeboard on a now declared coi editor who was making promotional edits to the University of Erlangen–Nuremberg article at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. A talk page discussion was opened and coi editor made an edit request that was highly promotional and it was pushed back, Talk:University of Erlangen–Nuremberg. Then these two IP editors appeared and have attempt to add similar, almost the exact same type of promotional content that is unsourced. I warned IP editor at User talk:2001:638:A004:F000:192:44:85:23 but it has made no difference.  scope_creep Talk  17:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * for one week. Aoidh (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Tnvol88 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Blocked 2 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:

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

Comments:

Also made a personal attack:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Montie12 reported by User:CandyScythe (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See explanation in talk page. There needs to be consistent treatment of UK and Israel. Either they are both Theocracies or neither is a Theocracy."
 * 2)  "Israel is not a Theocracy. It’s leaders are democratically elected and can be of any faith. Israel falls under the category of states with an established religion. By misrepresenting Israel as a Theocracy; when not doing same for other states that have an established religion, the authors and re-instaters of this text are knowingly breaching the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is a form of racism."
 * 3)  "Israel is not a Theocracy. It’s leaders are democratically elected and can be of any faith. Israel falls under the category of states with an established religion. By misrepresenting Israel as a Theocracy; when not doing same for other states that have an established religion, the authors and re-instaters of this text are knowingly breaching the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is a form of racism."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also accuses editors of antisemitism and racism. CandyScythe (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Ɱ reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1156425323 by Ɱ (talk): This is a link to the article, directly, but you need login info. There's no better way to do this."
 * 2)  "Restored revision 1156412725 by Ɱ (talk): A link to the article is better than no link. Registration requirements don't preclude users from linking."
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1134617687 by Ɱ (talk): These are fine"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also there's the posting on my talk page immediately after being told not to (Edit: and a second time!). JBL (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This user is extremely hostile, and has not attempted to talk out this issue, nor is granting me time as I attempt to continue the conversation. See User talk:JayBeeEll (and history here as they wipe my comments). ɱ  (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * JayBeeEll's own edit warring, calling me an "asshole", ignoring WP:BRD, ignoring WP:AGF to links I added to citations, trolling me, "banning" me from talking on their talk page after one comment, and reporting me here within minutes of conflict without discussing, is altogether easily blockable behavior. ɱ  (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it is deeply mysterious why anyone would react badly towards your condescending, unpleasant opening comment on my talk page. But not to worry, it's not like you followed it up by repeatedly posting there after I told you it wasn't welcome or anything! --JBL (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as welcome as a drive-by deletion without allowing for any discussion of your conduct in the relevant place. What am I supposed to do, invite you to comment on my talk page? You deserve a ban. ɱ  (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Goodness me... considering both of you violated WP:3RR, and none of those reverts were exempt, it might be worth just blocking you both. Alternatively, stop posting on each other's user talk pages, and start a discussion at Talk:Bemelmans Bar to resolve the content dispute. Up to you both — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see more than 3 reverts for either user, for the record. And I don't know why this report was opened when the other user's behavior is more egregious. ɱ  (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stating the obvious:
 * This is not ANI (and I doubt an ANI thread at the current point would have any positive effect).
 * Edit summaries are not article talk pages.
 * With this in mind: Further reverts without an article talk page discussion, even if they happen well after 24 hours, would clearly be edit warring and justify a block without further warning.
 * I don't think there's something to do here administratively at the moment; there is only something to be done (discussion or disengagement) and something not to be done (reverting) by users who may be unhappy about this yet shouldn't be surprised about this result.


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Continued the conversation at: Talk:Bemelmans Bar. If this user fails to restore the deleted content, we may very well find ourselves back at an administrator's noticeboard. ɱ  (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Vibigraphical reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "final edit for today....I may pick up at a later indefinite date.... please see other editor's talk page, and points....The stuff regarding "life-giver" etc in the intro sentences that I put in is contained in OTHER PARTS OF THE ARTICLE.  No need to hit readers with hard trinitarianism right off the bat, when body of article is MORE EXPANSIVE and COMPREHENSIVE than that.....   This is a "wiki" (supposedly)...not a blog."
 * 2)  "I did not violate any 3RR (and I won't) and the edit-warring is being done by you for WP NON-VALID I DON'T LIKE REASONS.   I'll pick up this issue on this article in the future, or if it gets resolved on article talk.....     Stop edit-warring.  NO OWN."
 * 3)  "you need to read more carefully, as the statement IS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE ARTICLE.   Not opinion as fact".  But sourced stuff contained in other sections, and that is simply encapsulating it in the lede...as it was arguably lacking."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1156458989 by FyzixFighter (talk) sorry the lede was lacking substance and needed referral from other parts of the article.  No valid reason to remove and revert....NO OWN"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It's actually quite humorous - the editor accuses (sometimes in ALL CAPS) others of violating OWN and edit-warring while reverting two other editors back to the editor's preferred version. FyzixFighter (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Right. And if you check all your reverts today, it comes to four...from you.


 * You can dress it up as only "two" by you, but some consecutive.  But they were all reverting and removing (wholesale) stuff I put in because you obviously didn't like the content.   And not for any valid WP policy reasons.   If you were dissatisfied with source, find a better one.   Or modify content, but not totally remove.   But in the context, it was overall four by you.    Count them.    If that's the case.  You began this edit war, at least in many real ways...  By whole-sale removal of work for PRIMARILY "I don't like reasons".  And you say some of the stuff didn't have RS.  So?
 * Also, you should well know that Wikipedia policy clearly says that there are more ways to edit-war than simply violating "3RR".
 * If you are uptight about a source, and find them not quite as reliable as you'd like, find a better source, is what WP policy says.    Also, nice dodge to all the points I made in my previous comment to you on my thread on your talk page.  With your sole focus on whether I actually violated "3RR" or not, and if I should get blocked.  Tells me what kind of person and editor you are, and what good or bad faith you have in this discussion.
 * Editor FyzixFighter mentions about occasional "all-caps" of one single word here and there, that in context are obviously meant strictly for emphasis and not at all for yelling. Sometimes I do bold too.  It depends.  But he feels the need to bring that up on this dispute board.
 * As I said...Fyzix. You'll notice that I did not restore your removal in the Mormon stuff, even though some of it arguably could have and should have remained.   And of course you removed it all, because you're a Mormon, and you don't like that your book explicitly teaches in Mosiah 15 and other places Sabellianism.   Modalism.      This has been observed by many theologians and scholars.  And in other places, a sort of Athanasian Trinitarianism.
 * But I worded it in a very NPOV way.  Didn't matter to you.  You claimed I didn't.  You're wrong.  Simply put.   You have obvious bias and I DON'T LIKE.   You're only human.   So stop pretending otherwise.   The edit-warring was clearly begun by you.   You could have MODIFIED stuff, instead of disrespectfully wholesale removing it all.   No good, Fyzzy.
 * I simply restored stuff that other parts of the article contained, to show more clearly in the lede, where intense hard trinitarianism was being presented too soon, even though rest of article is more expansive than that regarding the point of "God the Father".
 * But you'll also notice that I never removed the hyper-trinitarian stuff in the lede though. It's still there.  Regardless, you removed way too much for basically (whether you admit this fact or not) "I DON'T LIKE" reasons.   As I said, Wikipedia (for a long time now) is almost completely discredited.  WP policies are routinely violated, and stays violated if there's enough consensus.   So it's whatever.    Do what you will.   I won't visit this issue any time soon.   If at all.  If ever.  Regards.... Vibigraphical (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for demonstrating that you do not understand basic principles like WP:OWN, WP:EW, and WP:NPA, and that you may have little or no interest in working collaboratively. --FyzixFighter (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Because of an edit I made to Bible reverting Vibigraphical after their addition of a significant amount of unsourced material, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED. If not, I would indefinitely block the user as WP:BATTLEGROUND, inability to collaborate with other editors, and little understanding of Wikipedia policies. FyzixFighter states it rather concisely just above. The editor has just 71 edits to article space, almost all of which were made this month, and they have shown clearly that they intend to edit how they please with no thought as to the project itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not true .  I always intend to go by the principles of whether the edit matter is sourced (and copiously sourced), and if it's stand-alone, and if it's factual.   And also it's sometimes a subjective matter whether a source is considered "reliable".  Sometimes personal or political bias will make a specific editor consider something "unreliable".   The New York Post, for example, is the oldest newspaper in America, yet many arrogant Wikipedians consider it "unreliable" and don't like it used.   NY Post is not perfect at all.   But is a valid source, under Wikipedia rules.     But many editors have sometimes removed it.   Even though the Washington Post and New York Times have been for years discredited.  (For real.  They have.)  Yet I still use them anyway, on here.   But...  See what I mean?
 * And I always ultimately concede to consensus (even if I think consensus is factually wrong). Consensus is consensus.     I'm not perfect all the time necessarily.   As no one here is, as everyone (though denying it) will have bias and "I don't like" tendencies on these articles.   More so than ever.
 * But what is a habit is that some editors remove things along with valid things without carefully looking all the edits and additions of other editors.
 * In the case of Fyzi, and I know already that you yourself won't be objective, as your comment clearly reveals, he is a Mormon, and he removed valid true sourced information because he doesn't like how the Book of Mormon explicitly (arguably) teaches Modalism (where Jesus is clearly called both the Father and the Son, Himself). He removed it. And I did not restore it.  I let that specific revert go.
 * But the matter of the lede, where hard trinitarianism was being pushed so soon, even though the rest of the article is more expansive and comprehensive than that regarding "God the Father", there was no WP valid reason to remove that. He just didn't like the Mormon stuff, so he convinced himself that everything else I added or did must have been "wrong" too.  Human nature.   He started the edit war by multiple reverts, making it to at least four, but even if i twas just 2 or 3, it was edit warring for clear "I DON'T LIKE" reasons, against the policy "NO OWN".   Vibigraphical (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your comments about FyzixFighter constitute a personal attack. I'm not sure where you even got the idea that FF is a Mormon. I have no idea if they are or not. I'm afraid all of your comments continue to show that you are not only WP:NOTHERE but truly disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He himself said that he's a Mormon, on his own talk page.  And as I said,, you clutch your pearls over facts that are mentioned, and call them "personal attacks", ignoring the substance of the argument and point, like how FyzixFighter removed stuff in the Mormon section (even though sourced and worded very carefully in NPOV style) because he simply didn't like it, and he's biased, even though it is referenced and true.   And you showed and confirmed what I knew about you already.  That you yourself are biased with little credibility or relevance in this matter.  Yet you see the need to chime in anyway.   You and others violate "no own" and "I don't like" all the time (even if you deludedly like to think you don't).   So I take your own personal attack on me with a few grains of salt.  I consider the sources.  (Now watch you dodge and ignore the specifics and substance again with "you're disruptive" etc.)   Whatever.
 * As I said, though not perfect, I try hard to follow ACTUAL Wikipedia policy, and even with others (you judge hastily and arrogantly), and even if others (whether they have experience or clout or not) do not.  Wikipedia for years now (this has been documented and noticed a long time ago) is mostly a cabal of politically and/or theologically or philosophically biased POV-pushers, obnoxious bullies, arrogant edit-warriors, projectionist hypocrites, and "I DON'T LIKE" fact-suppressors.  You think that wholesale removal of valid relevant and sourced stuff and me not putting with it is "disruptive and non-collaberative and non-building of an encyclopedia".  Yeah, ok, .   I'll take that from you for what it's worth.  Nothing.   Referenced material, even from "RS", tends to get removed from WP pages where there is a majority bias or wave against it.  To protect or preserve a narrative or agenda.  Which is against a true objective neutral encyclopedia.   It's unfortunate.  But it's happened, and keeps happening.   I'm trying to help build a REAL encyclopedia with no censorship of facts that other editors may not be so wild about.    Regards. Vibigraphical (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I suppose I am involved, and like Bbb I think that this user is simply NOTHERE. I had to revert again, since the text they added is so ungrammatical, so poorly punctuated that it should not stand in the opening sentences of a pretty important article. Besides edit warring and linguistic incompetence, there's also the matter of NPOV: they wrote "This is referring to his role as Life-giver and Law-giver of all creation", thereby making God the life-giver etc. of creation, in Wikipedia's voice. They don't seem to understand how this is completely unacceptable--yet another reason to show this editor the door. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , yes you are involved directly, and I already addressed your argument of "poor grammar" etc, in that WP policy is not necessarily to rudely disrespectfully remove the entire thing, but to improve the grammar problems (if they really exist).  There's no getting around the fact though that the article itself talks more expansively and comprehensively about the role of "God the Father" as "Life-giver" etc...and not just the direct hyper-trinitarian concept.   So why doesn't the lede contain it likewise in conjunction?   You editors never address that point, but simply remove things with lame FRONT excuses, when it's obvious that you just don't like.  Vibigraphical (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am "involved", which is why I haven't blocked you yet. No you didn't address anything. "And also as being the direct father" is ungrammatical. The following semicolon is also incorrect. You keep saying "it's addressed in the article" but that's just nonsense. You are claiming that God is the father of creation, in Wikipedia's voice--that you still don't understand that simply means you are not competent to edit this project. And "you don't like it" is just the lamest of justifications. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I may agree with you in that semi-colon matter was this or that. I'm not even arguing that.   I was simply saying that grammar issues should not be reason to summarily remove the whole thing.   Also "direct Father" is a point made in both trinitarian and nontrinitarian Christianity.  That Jesus was the more direct and immediate "Son" of God, and not just as general creation.  Again though, the entire article is very good in that it mentions the trinitarian, nontrinitarian, modalist, Jewish, and general role of "God the Father".   The lede (I believe used to have it in the past) does not, for some reason. Vibigraphical (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But the reader is hit immediately with hard trinitarianism, leaving out completely the point of general "Life-giver and Law-giver to creation". Which clearly IS in other parts of the article.  And it's not "nonsense".   How is it "nonsense" exactly,  ?   It's in the rest of the article.   Pointedly.   Yet the lede lacks it.   You didn't explain just how it's "nonsense".  You just asserted that.  And insulted me too.   It's in the body of the article, but for some unjustified reason, the lede has it nowhere.   Why exactly?   "God the Father" is not only about "first person of the trinity" in the Bible and in general Christianity.   That was my only point with that.   If there's a grammar or punctuation issue, why not modify and improve that, instead of totally removing it?   That's all I was saying.   Regards.  Vibigraphical (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * New law I can derive now that this report has given me enough data to confidently state it: "The amount of discussion of an issue underlying an ANEW report is inversely proportional to the discussion on the article talk page that could have forestalled the ANEW report". In this case there has been no discussion on the talk page in ... two months. And, similarly, all of the above is irrelevant to the question of whether Vibigraphical violated 3RR. Adding this revert to the four listed above, I count four within the space of a couple of hours. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Yswj700 reported by User:Acolex2 (Result: no action)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: I am arguing with User:Yswj700 about Victoria of the Gallic Empire and I want to talk to him at the talk Talk:Victoria (Gallic Empire)

I told him many times about the talk, but he never joins the talk, only doing "revert"

Yesterday I reported him and was told to discuss on the talk page.

Yesterday I didn't know about WP:3RR, but today I know it and I told him the rule. But he broke the rule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/List_of_women_monarchs

And he still doesn't participate in the talk page. What should I do?


 * I'm looking into this. User:Acolex2 should have started a discussion on the relevant talk page, not on Talk:Victoria (Gallic Empire)--and their comment there wasn't exactly clear either. We can say, just looking at this superficially, that User:Yswj700 was edit warring, but they made three reverts, and so did Acolex. Besides, Yswj700 at least left informative edit summaries where Acolex doesn't get much further than ... well look at their edit summaries: they are not helpful and do not address the substance of the edit. On top of that, there's WP:BRD, and Yswj700 gave good reasons for Acolex to start that discussion instead of reverting. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to block here: Yswj left informative edit summaries and did not break 3R; Acolex needs to work on skills--in terms of writing edit summaries, of seeking consensus on the (right) talk page, of not dropping warnings and policy links instead of communicating, etc. "Telling someone the rule" is...well, it's not collegial, to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He never participates in the talk page. (Talk:Victoria (Gallic Empire)) He is just doing "revert". What should I do if he continues not to join the talk? Acolex2 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:9893:F200:F0C4:846D:E8EB:E13B reported by User:Paul W (Result: blocked for simple vandalism)
Pages: (and )

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crewe&oldid=1152224810

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crewe&diff=1156313993&oldid=1152224810
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crewe&diff=1156376522&oldid=1156318676
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crewe&diff=1156392254&oldid=1156379934
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crewe&diff=1156396390&oldid=1156394263
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crewe&diff=1156452030&oldid=1156420913
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crewe&diff=1156516015&oldid=1156452691

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A02:C7C:9893:F200:144B:C12B:4D:26C2&diff=prev&oldid=1156393406

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACrewe&diff=1156528986&oldid=1156528924

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2A02:C7C:9893:F200:F0C4:846D:E8EB:E13B&diff=prev&oldid=1156527343

Comments: The IP user has also, without explanation, removed similar sentences from the Nantwich article Paul W (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * /64 range blocked for a week. There was no need for an AN3 report: a simple vandalism block suffices. Unexplained removal of content is disruptive enough to count as vandalism;, next time just warn and report to AIV. Your effort and your diplomacy are appreciated, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drmies. Will go down AIV route if this recurs. Paul W (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2001:8004:4450:B081:85FD:66E5:67EE:B64E reported by User:Agentdoge (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with 'No'"
 * 2)  "←Replaced content with 'This is my talk page to do with it what I want... go away.'"
 * 3)  "←Replaced content with 'Absolutely no.'"
 * 4)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 5)  "←Replaced content with 'No'"
 * 6)  "←Replaced content with 'It is my talk page not yours.'"
 * 7)  "←Replaced content with 'I am allowed to blank my talk page should I want to.'"
 * 8)  "start this nonsense again we can take this to ANI. This is not the place for your inane babble. This is my talk page, I do not have to communicate with you."
 * 9)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 10)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 11)  "←Replaced content with 'No'"
 * 12)  "My talk page not yours"
 * 13)  "fµck off"
 * 14)  "my talk page not yours."
 * 15)  "stay the fµck off my talk page."
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with 'No'"
 * 2)  "My talk page not yours"
 * 3)  "fµck off"
 * 4)  "my talk page not yours."
 * 5)  "stay the fµck off my talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP User edit warring on own IP talk page. Agentdoge (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This is my talk page to do with it what I want, the edits on my talk page are clearly non-constructive and therefore I do not have to respond to them and can by rights blank my own talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:4450:B081:85FD:66E5:67EE:B64E (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally they are clearly WP:NOTHERE, I reported them to WP:AIV already, I will support a block that could be longer and have TPA revoked. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 14:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Been lurking on this for a few minutes. They can blank their own talk page as per WP:BLANKING. That said, they are WP:NOTHERE and their previous edits have earned the IP user a warning. I suggest we put User:2001:8004:4450:B081:85FD:66E5:67EE:B64E on a final warning that they've already earned, and leave their talk blank. -  AquilaFasciata (talk &#124; contribs) 14:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP (/64 range) for 3 days for vandalism, not for edit-warring on their Talk page. You were wrong to restore the warnings to the IP's Talk page. The IP is correct on that point; they are entitled to remove the warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, my apologies. Thank you. Agentdoge (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

User:208.81.213.226 reported by User:Aoi (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1156417996 by Aoi (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1156417996 by Aoi (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1156417996 by Aoi (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1156417996 by Aoi (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1156417996 by Aoi (talk)"
 * 6)  "Sources are true. Rosindell wants you to be his censor. Think for yourself."

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

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

Comments: Editor has been edit warring at this article for the last week. Although they've been invited several times to join the talk page discussion on the topic (where three editors opposed their edit), they have declined to do so. I'd like to emphasize that while the IP's edit summary notes my user name four times in their reverts today, I have only made one edit to the article in the last 24 hours. Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * And this follow-up edit demonstrates a desire to persist in their behavior. Aoi (青い) (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Bon courage reported by User:Thinker78 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  13 May 2023
 * 2)  23 May 2023
 * 3)  23 May 2023

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: I read WP:EDITWAR beforehand and how to handle edit warring behaviors. Due to Bon Courage's seniority, repeated ignoring of the discussion and consensus process, and their unilateral reverts of my attempts to reflect consensus in the discussion, I decided to report. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC) I don't quite understand the usage of "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" if there is no 3rr violation but only apparent edit warring which seems to be documented in the "Diffs of the user's reverts" section and the page history. I have a feeling though that Bon Courage just wants to move on and I don't mind that. I just reported because I was perplexed about the situation that developed in the NPOV page and to make a point about the importance of following the consensus process, much specially by senior editors. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As seems to have been concluded above in discussion that took far longer than it should have. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Three different reverts is not a violation. There is a significant discussion at WT:Neutral point of view and I don't see an agreement on a proposal so no one is reverting against consensus. It looks like a bunch of editing on the NPOV policy page as people try various options. Changing a policy often needs more than a bit of editing—an RfC is needed if there is pushback. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “Three different reverts is not a violation”.
 * WP:3RR says “an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period” (emphasis mine). Whether or not the edits in question are “reverts” is another issue, but if they are, Bon Courage is 1 edit away from a 3RR violation. Prcc27 (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They're not "reverts". Addition of completely new content is not a revert, for example. Furthermore, "three" is not "more than three" and the difference between 23 May and 13 may is not "within 24 hrs". Bon courage (talk) 02:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what your definition of revert is. According to WP:EDITWAR, it is "to undo the action of another editor". I take that not necessarily pushing the undo button. For example in your edit summary of 04:35, 13 May 2023 seemed to indicate your intention to undo my edit, as you stated, "Not an improvement". But you did "Restored revision 1153215022 by Sdkb". Which as far as I know is a revert. Am I missing something? I don't know. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. The removal of the paragraph (your third "diff of user's reverts") is not a revert; it's an attempt to solve the issues under discussion in a completely new way. Your link of a "previous version reverted to" is a null diff, not a valid link. Badically this report is malformed, and looks malicious - note between the warning and the report I didn't make any edits ... so what happened in those 31 minutes to trigger you into action? Bon courage (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I do take issue with actions taken after what seems to be an unreasonable short amount of time of a notice. But the reason why I came to the noticeboard after I posted the first notice of edit warring in your talk page is because afterwards I analyzed the situation further and decided that it merited a report. Notice how rarely if ever I have reported issues in this page. Sincerely, Thinker78  (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you analyze it even further you'll see that a "bunch of editing on the NPOV policy page as people try various options" is normal editing, not edit warring. And an explicit statement that we now need to move to an RfC is not the manifesto of an edit warrior. What are you wanting, some kind of "punishment"? Bon courage (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want punishment, I just made a report for the mentioned issues. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just point out that I am not claiming 3rr violation but edit warring. My understanding was that not only 3rr is reported in this noticeboard but edit warring in general. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Collaborative editing in diverse ways to further discussion (and as you know the edits did provoke discussion) is actually good. WP:BOLD and all that. I have no intention to edit war over anything on the NPOV policy page, and explicitly said things now need to move to RfC in my view. Bon courage (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why you decided to revert my edits if said edits were done trying to reflect consensus of the discussion at the time. You refused to heed my request to join the discussion and instead you continued editing the relevant part.
 * Later on User:Horse Eye's Back even said in an edit summary of a revert to your edit, "stop, this is becoming disruptive".
 * You proceeded to yet make another edit, which was reverted again by them with the edit summary, "Adding a section title which nobody has suggested and appears to mock those you are in an edit dispute with to a policy would appear to be WP:POINTY in the extreme".
 * For the aforementioned motives and your undoing of my edits, I do consider there was an edit warring situation. As a fellow editor I do recognize your big contribution to Wikipedia (and I know it requires time to be editing so much). But I would expect a senior editor like you to be more collegial and mindful of the necessary consensus process. Sincerely,  Thinker78  (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the process has been derailed by problematic edits / bad faith / personal attacks so probably nothing's going to happen now as a result of this TP discussion - which is why I said an RfC is probably needed. I don't know why you "don't understand" why I reverted, because I have clearly described more than once what I think is a problem (as have others). This is not some kind of process game, it's about trying to get the text right. Are you going to move towards an RfC? Bon courage (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (Probably not an RFC just yet.) Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Johnuniq @Prcc27 While IMO this noticeboard is not quite the correct venue, as BC has not yet made three reverts in 24 hours, he did make this extremely WP:POINT-y edit in lieu of a third revert. (The context is that he was accusing people on the talk page of wanting to make the section algorithmic, and when the opposing side pushed back against this strawman, he added the section title "Algorithmic orders" to the paragraph he disliked, as a clear attempt at a personal attack against people who disagreed with him.) Loki (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic here, but it was other editors who raised the "algrithmic" concern and nobody disagrees with it do they? If we're going to have a step-by-step the point is it should be labelled as such (I thought). Anyway, everything collapsed back to the prior version ... Bon courage (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Horse Eye Back has already explained very clearly on the talk page that nobody said the thing you are accusing them of saying, and did so about four and a half hours before the POINT-y edit in question. Loki (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That explanation was 100% mistaken though. Bon courage (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the explanation for adding the section title if you didn't mean it as mocking? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is an untitled section and isn't a topic paragraph so needs a title. These are step-by-step instructions. Bon courage (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But why add that title? A title which had only been used as an attack on the talk page and had no support from anyone (including apparently yourself)? Why do something that everybody is opposed to unless you're trying to be disruptive to make a point? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? calling something an "algorithm" is not an attack, it is what is at issue. It didn't stick and got reverted. Big deal. Another editor first used the word "algorithm" and another editor wrote "yes the text is obviously algorithmic" (which it is). I'm agreeing with them, not "attacking" them. The only "attack" I can see on that page is the one you got called out for. Bon courage (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The editors who used the word algorithm support the removal of the text, they use "algorithm" as a derogatory term. They absolutely do not want to title the section that, nobody proposed that and it makes no sense. Why would you add a derogatory title instead of a neutral one? I can't title a section "Stupid argument by dummies" but that appears to be what you effectively intended to do. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not "derogatory" I think, but accurate. What seems to be at issue is that some editors think the PAGs are algorithmic anyway so this can be too. I think that's wrong. But if you're going to have algorithms at least call them that. You're inventing some kind of weird drama over this which I do not recognize. "Algorithmic" is not an insult. Bon courage (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "But if you're going to have algorithms at least call them that." thats disruptive, you know that you don't have consensus that these are algorithms, you lost an argument to remove the text and now you're giving it a spite title. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a weird and wrong framing, savouring of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I don't consider any "argument" to have been won or lost (odd way to see it) and as I say the way forward is probably an RfC. Bon courage (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You had a very different opinion yesterday about whether or not the discussion had "gone to shit" I remember you saying "Okay, this needs to close now. What we have is obviously shit, but some editors love it (for whatever reasons), so it's not going to change as the result of a simple Talk page discussion, Suggest that if any editor wants to propose improvement they can progress towards an RfC, otherwise we can stay with the shit text and everybody can ignore it as they always did (personally, fine by me)." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the text is shit (not "the discussion"): a wise and true assessment, and we're back to text from before any attempt to improve began weeks ago. You've made a lot of comments now, starting with a PA, but so far as I can see not a single one is focused on suggesting improvements to the actual policy under discussion. Forgive me if I ignore any further contributions which are not so focused. Bon courage (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, we are discussing issues with your conduct. This is not the place to discuss changes to the article. "gone to shit" clearly refers to the discussion not the text, the text didn't change. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, ANI is the appropriate venue. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Allreet reported by User:Gwillhickers (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bibliography_of_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=1156419007&oldid=1156303102

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bibliography_of_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=1156419007&oldid=1156303102
 * 2) [diff] — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bibliography_of_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=1156419444&oldid=1156419172
 * 3) [diff] — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bibliography_of_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=1156436154&oldid=1156423678
 * 4) [diff] — https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bibliography_of_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=1156448235&oldid=1156441162

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABibliography_of_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=1156445683&oldid=1156304418

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAllreet&diff=1156451904&oldid=1156447526

Comments:

This is not the first time I've had to deal with an unreasonable discussion and multiple reverts on user:Allreet's part. He once made six reverts] to my contributions, which were good faith edits, well sourced and involved no WP policy issues. I let it slide that time hoping that he would reconsider his behavior before going down the same path, but apparently this hasn't influenced his behavior lately. The latest reverts involve opinions on article size (The article in question is a list), which sources to include, author-masking and things of this nature, and involved no policy issues, factual errors, vandalism, etc. I take no please in resorting to this action, as we have been working great together up until lately.. After a long response to his initial complaint he continued to make the same and other reverts without any discussion. All his issues were well and rationally addressed, but he decided that continued reverting was the way to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. This looks like a situation in which while I feel I could block the editor in question, I don't feel like I have to. Not yet. Many of the usual indicators (IMO) for a block—absent or insufficient talk page discussion, incivility—are not there at this point. I think the best you could do is try to get other editors involved through WP:DR/N, or the talk pages of one of the many projects involved, to increase the likelihood of consensus on at least one possible outcome. Since it's the newest report to this noticeboard, we'll keep an eye on how things work out over the next few days. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I may be in error, but it's not clear to me as to who reverted whom. I edited the "Influentials" section of the Bibliography of the United States Constitution, and my changes were reverted by.
 * Meanwhile, I have tried to discuss these issues with Gwillhickers, but as the record of our exchanges shows, we tend to disagree on most things and he almost never concedes anything. So what that amounts to is that little can be changed if an editor continues to argue their case. A case in point: the lede to the Bibliography contains at least four significant historical errors. I pointed these out on the Bibliography's Talk page, Gwillhickers will not admit to any of them. If I change these mistakes (two involve dates, so there's nothing really to argue about) would that constitute a revert?
 * So in the current case, I suggested condensing some of the entries since the Bibliography is now approaching 300,000 bytes in length. What I got was an argument that length isn't an issue. So to demonstrate my point, I condensed the entries in the section in question, plus I added two entries. The result was a reduction in length by about half. I also asked in my edit summary that we discuss these changes rather than have them reverted as out of hand. That request was ignored, and Gwillhickers reverted the changes.
 * I believe this dispute is also tied to bad feelings over a Multiple Issues template that I added to the Bibliography just before making the changes. It also could be related to a dispute we've had over the definition of primary sources. Since we were deadlocked, even though I provided several sources supporting my view, he suggested asking an "expert" editor's opinion. I agreed. And while the other editor confirmed what I was saying, Gwillhickers continued to argue the point. In our last exchange, two days ago, he emphasized his long experience in disputes as if that lent weight to his position.
 * Those are pretty much the facts. As for the incident last summer, the alleged "six reverts", it's totally irrelevant, except Gwillhickers seems to be using it to bolster his current complaint by portraying me as a chronic reverter. The facts: in August, I made routine, uncontentious edits to six different paragraphs in an article we were collaborating on (Founding Fathers of the United States). His reaction was to immediately accuse me of edit warring. I believe it wasn't, that I was just doing what editors do. Allreet (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the passage from the 3RR policy that quoted last year:
 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
 * Seriously, does this mean that if I make three (or four) edits to an existing article in the same day, I could be violating the policy? I can't imagine that's the case, but I would appreciate an explanation. Allreet (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this a bit more, what it could be saying is that if I edit something an editor wrote, and they change it back, manually or otherwise, I should not reverse the "action" with a subsequent edit and especially not more than three times. In which case, I wasn't guilty of "six reverts". I only changed six different passages one time, none of which were reverted by . Is that correct? Allreet (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first question, yes it does. Usually it applies to recent edits ... if you think about it, almost any edit qualifies as a revert, really. And as a practical matter, your second reply above shows a bit more understanding ... we start counting reverts when the action is, as stated in policy, mostly a reverse of a previous edit, because that's what tends to set people off. A lot of times people use the "undo" button, which helps because it generates an edit summary that starts with "Undid edits by ...", making the editor's intent crystal clear. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been editing for around 17 years and have never had a problem with reverts, these being the exception. Also, I hardly ever use undo, because I do understand its association with reverts, plus I rarely touch recent material other than my own. Thanks for the clarifications. Allreet (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the reverts in question were quite large, and contained content that I had spent much time and effort researching and citing. All the opinions that Allreet posted on the Talk page were highly opinionated and questionable or inaccurate and didn't take many things into consideration.
 * For example, he said that many of the sources in the Bibliography of the United States Constitution should be moved to a different Bibliography, however, there is no other such bibliography for the Constitution, as there is for the Bibliography of the American Civil War which Allreet cited as an example.
 * He said that the lede shouldn't "recount" the history of the Constitution, but as anyone can see, there is only one statement involving the Constitution's history which gives context to the third and final sentence about the writings of historians. Three sentences -- only one touching on a relevant idea involving history, which he claims has four errors, which I pointed out, with reliable sources, was also not correct. When you count, or "recount", anything it involves a good number of items.
 * He insisted that we not list multiple sources by one author with author-masks, and claimed "No other bibliography I've seen in Wikipedia or elsewhere does this." But after it was pointed out, with six examples, that this was simply not the case he went ahead and edited as he pleased regardless.
 * Now he's here at this ANI doubting the 3RR policy, i.e."Seriously, does this mean that if I make three (or four) edits to an existing article in the same day, I could be violating the policy? I can't imagine that's the case." As pointed out above, he has been taken to task about edit warring several times on Talk pages All one has to do is search the archives on Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States starting with this example, contrary to his last remark.  Again, we were working together just fine up until lately, but in the face of all this unreasonableness, errors, compounded by multiple and unyielding reverts I was at wits end and am here now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any point in responding in terms of specifics, except to point out that I honestly did not understand the 3RR policy, none of your work was lost since it can easily be reinstated, and very little of what you just said is true. Allreet (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The 3RR policy has been quoted, and linked for you on more than one occasion. After 17 years of experience you're telling us you don't understand it. Now I'm being accused of lying - with not even an explanation. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were lying. I believe you mean well but seem to find it difficult to admit to errors. For example, your most recent comment on the Bibliography's Talk page begins: If there are any "errors" you typically failed to point them out. That's simply not true, since I pointed out the specifics in detail more than once. Do I consider your remark a "lie". No. I regard it as inaccurate, a bit unkind, but common to some people's argumentation style.
 * However, little of this, meaning my long opening statement and your more recent ones, has anything to do with the 3RR issue. So let's stick with that. The truth, then, at least as how I see it: I made an error in reverting your changes, and the 3RR policy was unclear to me. I apologize for the error and I'll do my best to not repeat it. Allreet (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * per above discussion and lack of any reversion in two days. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for administering this as well as your guidance on the policy. Allreet (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * — I regretted coming here in the first place, but am not disappointed in the result, that it might otherwise discourage a knowledgeable and valued contributor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

User:91.141.215.172 reported by User:Xeverything11 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1156819671 by Xeverything11 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1156818376 by Interstatefive (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message related to your edit (warning 3)"
 * 2)   "Message related to your edit (warning 4)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked for 31h for vandalism by .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Gurther reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The news media cites other news medias, which indicates that the source is violating WP:CLONE, which according to WP:WINARS makes the source unreliable."
 * 2)  "removed source violating WP:WINARS"
 * 3)  "rv. not an improvement, we already discussed how these sources are troubling and unreliable, i advise re-reading the discussion in Pavel Shatev or you can create a talk section about this issue."
 * 4)  "Yes we did Jingby, please view the conversation here"
 * 5)  "It is a useful improvement for clarifications, please discuss at talk."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor thinks he made only two reverts, but he actually made more than three in the last 24 hours. This is a clear violation of the policy and not his first time doing so. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Talleyrand6 reported by User:Darryl Kerrigan (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2023 Alberta general election

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

Comments:

This editor was previously blocked for edit warring in April 2023. They resort to name calling, don't attempt to secure consensus and are generally disruptive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I simply refuse to accept you have any authority in enforcing a rule you made up.
 * I asked you to directly message me if you have problems with the map but you ignored that.
 * It's not my fault that I'm repeatedly reverting your bogus edits. Have a good night!
 * Talleyrand6 (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Elijahandskip reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revert as they had not seen the talk page message yet. Since there is two separate reliable sources that have differing pressures, both need to be mentions. Since there is a consensus to use one (and only one) in the infobox, the factual accuracy disputed template is necessary to help editors and readers know there is a disagreement in sources. Problem solved. Have a good day!"
 * 2)  "/* Current storm information */ Removing JTWC’s “current info” section as JMA is considered more accurate and should be used in the infobox."
 * 3)  "Reverting pressure to 903 hPa. ATCF in the 18z update said it was 903 hPa. JTWC said 903. Multiple reliable source meteorologists say 903 as well."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1157023311 by Final-Fantasy-HH (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1157023311 by Final-Fantasy-HH (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* May 2023 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Generally combative behavior when confronted over these edits contrary to WP:WPTC discussions. Does not seem to want to respect BRD. User has a history of disregarding consensus such as their earlier incident with the track map colors. I can provide diffs of previous incidents when I get back to my desktop; I am raising this in a timely fashion due to the need for immediate action to get them to stop attempting to “get consensus by editing”.— Jasper Deng (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prior to this discussion noticeboard being started, I dropped the stick . Would ask Jasper Deng to withdraw this as I’m just ignoring the article. I believe there is a content accuracy dispute while Jasper Deng tells me there isn’t one. Simple as that. I’m not going to fight the issue and I am entitled to believe what I believe. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note for admins, I have not violated the WP:3RR rule as only two of those reverts (the bottom 2) are on pressure while the top one is on a factual accuracy disputed template and not actually edit warring over the pressures. I dropped the stick and I plan to ignore this going forward. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Since we are here and my request for withdrawal got ignored,, you keep referring to the WPTC consensus on this issue (JMA over JTWC in infobox). However, you have yet to actually link any of the discussions being referenced. Since you were WP:BOLD enough to take this issue to a noticeboard after I dropped the stick, please link said discussion here as it is unknown to me and so the admins can see you are telling the truth. Side note, how is a WikiProject consensus able to overrule WP:RS, if it really did say Japan Meteorological Agency is more reliable than the Joint Typhoon Warning Center? Hopefully Jasper Deng can clear that issue up when the WikiProject Tropical Cyclone consensus discussion finally get’s linked and I can actually see what the heck is being referenced in a lot of these edits. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can an admin close this discussion? I just started a discussion on Jasper Deng's page to figure out what the heck he is talking about. I did get hot-headed, but honestly, there is as much fault on Jasper Deng's end for failing to actually provide a link to a discussion which said I was wrong. All I kept getting was, you are wrong per a discussion and start a discussion to find out. Seems wrong and to defuse the disagreement, I was willing to drop the stick, which apparently turned into a noticeboard post-dropping the stick, indicating Jasper Deng's intentions to not acknowledge the dropping the stick action. I have now requested politely that the discussion being mentioned be linked on his talk page. I don't want this to turn into a new indicent on AN, but to say the least, this is basically a Wikipedia is not about winning situation since I'm not even able to find out what discussion made the call on this topic. All I keep getting is "you are wrong" and some discussion you never heard of and don't know about, but I'm not willing to link to you, said you are wrong. Well, this is my last message in this discussion and whatever happens, I'm dropping the stick since the reporter is uncooperative and unwilling to answer questions or discussion any concerns with me. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 12 and (more specifically) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 4 where official values have to come from the RSMC. Anyways, I'm mostly bringing this here because of your conduct. This is a pattern:
 * User talk:Elijahandskip/Archive 5
 * Edit warring last month
 * Explicitly reinserting content knowing it's disputed
 * This is only a partial list, and only from the past few months. This is why I was quick to issue the warning and escalate it here, because this 3RR violation today is just one of a long, chronic, pattern of poor conduct.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Final comment from Elijahandskip: One small comment before I am 100% done with the discussion (warning, block, whatever happens). I have made people upset in the past for actually starting too many discussions ("Elijahandskip is scared to death of being blocked and seems to be on a warpath as of late, starting unnecessary discussions"). I have started numerous discussions and work with editors when I am given the opportunity to. For example, I can just about guarantee had the "March 2023" situation linked above gone to a discussion, there would have been an overwhelming consensus that the person was a troll as they were removing a long-standing reliable source consensus that is used on hundreds of articles. That was part of the problem of why I actually made people upset. After a small edit-war over a pointless thing (1 single revert since that is an edit war apparently), I would start a discussion. After about a dozen discussions in a week, it was soo many. If an admin actually thinks I was wrong, I've been told in the past to work through my previous corrections and disagreements to get community consensus. I am 100% willing to go back to opening a discussion for some of these pointless disagreements as I did in the past. All I need is an admin to say I should do that and the moment a disagreement arises, I would start a discussion without skipping a heartbeat. I just want something to link back to for when people get upset at how many discussions I start in the future if that is what I need to do. Editors disagree, and most of the disagreements are over minor things. I do need to do a better job of opening discussions. After hearing how people were upset at all the minor discussions I started in the past, I got bad about not starting them when I should have. That's on me and that is what I plan to improve. But for real, can an admin explain exactly when I should open a discussion? Following WP:BRD in the past got people upset after dozens of discussions got started (since the first revert was a new discussion started). Should I truly follow BRD, or should I try to work it out on a talk page first or what exactly? Any advice is greatly appreciated. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elijahandskip, I think it's not that you've upset people by starting too many discussions. What people object to is starting silly or unnecessary discussions. No one can tell you what is worth opening a discussion over, that's just something we expect you to have developed judgement on by this time. If you haven't, it might be worth simply making a habit of moving on instead of opening a discussion and letting someone else open a discussion if they think it's necessary. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

based on the discussion above. I should add that, as noted, there was no 3RR violation; however of course all parties should remember that many people have been blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR (per the intro of WP:EW:"... it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. "). And as it has been on many other occasions, the above discussion demonstrates, admittedly by counterexample, how communicating before reporting can often eliminate the need to report. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

User:WeeKeeEditor reported by User:Admantine123 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: , warning given by.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:


 * , these are the reverts of the user. The image added are according to Wikipedia's image policy. The section, where it is added, talks about these politicians playing important role in transformation of poltics of Bihar . Next passage also talks about one of these politicians, shown in image only. Yet the user is reverting it on dubious grounds. Admantine123 (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Half of the politics section talks about contribution of Nitish Kumar and his transformation of Bihar after he became Chief Minister. Previous section also discusses about Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar becoming Champion of Mandal Politics. Then, why shouldn't we include an image of these two politicians for the readers. -Admantine123 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Half of the politics section talks about contribution of Nitish Kumar and his transformation of Bihar after he became Chief Minister. Previous section also discusses about Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar becoming Champion of Mandal Politics. Then, why shouldn't we include an image of these two politicians for the readers. -Admantine123 (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Probably has little or no interest in working collaboratively considering this response. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Superb Owl reported by User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (Result: P-blocks, three months)
Page:, , etc.

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  (Green Party example 1)
 * 2)  (Green Party example 2)
 * 3)  (Supreme Court example)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Green Party example 1)
 * 2)  (Green Party example 1)
 * 3)  (Green Party example 2)
 * 4)  (Supreme Court example)
 * 5)  (Supreme Court example)
 * 6) See also  United States Senate

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "you seem to not be interested in discussing how to best phrase them in talk before jumping in, and instead just go right ahead and then engage in multiple reverts"
 * 2)  "if you want to change in after you have been reverted (as you were) then you have to make a case for it and convince others, not simply complain that you have a hard time agreeing and apparently believing that this"
 * 3)  (edit summary: "Again reverting strange additions, that you yourself can't find citations for - so you place [citation needed] next to it")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Supreme Court
 * 2)  Green Party

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

Comments:

A variety of users, including to myself have attempted to explain these concepts on User talk:Superb Owl, Talk:Green Party (United States), Talk:Supreme Court of the United States, and elsewhere. Nothing has stuck. The user has continued to give undue weight to theories that all minor US political parties "spoil" major elections, that the Supreme Court only acts as a partisan body, etc. When these undue weight edits are altered, the user has repeatedly and exhaustingly reverted numerous editors to restore them. The user has not responded productively to consensus that undue weight is being given. The user has been notified repeatedly of core policies regarding edit warring, NPOV, OR, etc.

As US politics is a topic subject to discretionary sanctions I would suggest a topic ban for a limited time. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * In short, the leads of both Green Party (United States) and Supreme Court of the United States do not discuss many (if any) controversies and focus relatively little on notability. The disputes arose primarily out of attempts to transform these leads to reflect the latest updates to the body which I helped improve to provide more balance (and read a little less like it was copied and pasted from either group's website).


 * As to issues with process, my prior lack of understanding of WP:Voice was one important factor (though not the only one) for the earlier Supreme Court discussions @49ersBelongInSanFrancisco continues referencing, which has been learned and corrected, though the information that is still missing from the leads in many articles the user (and others mentioned) has aggressively reverted (without being willing to engage in talk page discussion, leave templates suggesting improvements, etc.) includes very relevant controversies facing the Court, which, contrary to some editors' beliefs, seems to have a significant amount of partisanship, especially on the most high-profile political cases, that merits mention and discussion.


 * The topics @49ersBelongInSanFrancisco left in a rush on my page were old disputes that I've worked to correct when there was outstanding issues, but some such topics were in fact mistakes on the part of another editor (eg). @49ersBelongInSanFrancisco's lack of a retraction for these mistakes makes me hope to get more perspectives from anyone who can help clarify these disputes and advise all parties involved.


 * Edit warring occurred after talk page discussions were ignored or dismissed citing vague reasons. At issue now in Green Party (United States) (and in the past, the Supreme Court article) is WP:Lead which recommends article leads "...should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Most if not all of the edits that have been subject to edit warring are from attempts to simply note highly relevant and widely publicized controversies mentioned in the article and also to just simply establish general notability and context outside of controversies. While @Mt.FijiBoiz did engage constructively at times, the editor did resort to name-calling on one occasion and I haven't experienced any effort on behalf of the editors mentioned to engage in fact-finding constructive dialogue, instead seeing aggressive reverts and withholding of consensus (e.g. 2) citing vague references to Wikipedia policies instead of providing sourcing to back up or even to add to the debate in the article, for example, claims of too much bias in the NYTimes or NBC News to warrant referencing notable controversies in the lead (Republican aid to Green Party and Russian covert/overt promotion of Jill Stein's 2016 campaign, respectively).


 * I would ask anyone watching for:
 * 1) temporary bans on the editors mentioned above to allow for more constructive, good faith editing and dialogue
 * 2) help shaping the Green Party (United States) and Supreme Court of the United States article leads, description and discussion. I've asked for (and am awaiting a reply from) the editors above to join in a dispute resolution over how to update the lead to reference the Green Party article, which, along with the Supreme Court page, mentions controversies in the body but not the lead despite making repeated attempts to help establish even a few sentences summarizing major controversies and have the focus on notability (instead of the more mundane minutiae taking up much of the space in these leads). Superb Owl (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Admin comments

 * , you're edit warring; there is no doubt about it. You posted various things on the talk page but it's hard to find the real invitations for collaborative editing in the midst of excessive detail and misguided personal comments (with this being a pretty good example of the latter). Same here: you could have responded to the meat of the report, but instead you post paragraphs that are too long and too full for human consumption, and you attack the other parties, asking for a ban. But the problem in these article histories is you, and I am going to block you from editing these two, Green Party (United States) and Supreme Court of the United States, in order to allow for "more constructive, good faith editing and dialogue". Please be aware that your behavior on talk pages needs to improve as well. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Drmies I see that I was edit warring and now know just how big of an issue that is and it will not happen again.
 * As far as Talk page conduct, I've read through those guidelines and see what you were talking about. It won't happen again. Thank you for noting that so concisely.
 * I do not yet know how to invite people to edit a Sandbox collaboratively (I'm still learning the ropes of the site) but am investigating that.
 * Lastly, I do want to note that @Drmies was a party to previous discussions - I very much accept the result but in the future would appreciate another administrator to review any future disputes should they arise.

Superb Owl (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Santasa99 reported by User:Johnbod (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   15:05, 26 May
 * 2)  15:37, 26 May
 * 3)  8:40, 27 May
 * 4)  13:46, 27 May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

''Comments:2 different editors reverted. Referenced text also removed.'' Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "Comments:2 different editors reverted. Referenced text also removed", there is nothing in this editor's statement that correspond the reality. A close inspection will reveal very strange persistence on rv over trivial and common sense matters, described for instance like rvt to better, or persistently misinterpreting MOS:SEEALSO as if the guideline requires "close relation", where it actually don't, and so on. Some statements are confused but I can't go into any kind of speculations. Most worrying is that this dispute over what constitute MOS:SEEALSO main point is actually irrelevant to user's all subsequent rv's, which they justified with this dispute over See also section, and used it as a pretext to revert all my other edits - so, the problem is that I stopped including (unnecessarily disputed) See also section after second editor's rv, but they continued to revert my edits in which I attempted to give an article a proper layout and enhance readability by introducing very common-sense typical structure, which finally gave its prose proper corresponding sections - up until then, all prose was crammed under History, regardless of variety of topics it covered. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  15:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to note, I initiated TP discussion in attempt to resolve dispute, but it did make much difference. However, I have used TP discussion to draw their attention to the fact that the edit which they are using as a pretext for their subsequent (edit-war) reverts was not made at all, it does not exists, but that had no effect either, so they continued to revert on common-semse and trivial matter dismissing me along the way and, also really unnecessary from them, went on to reply on my attempt to inform them that the cope is under ARBEE, with a same template on my TP.  ౪ Santa ౪  99°  16:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahem, yes, well. The other editor reverted was this one, who very sensibly added a gallery, which Santa reverted next edit. I won't repeat the points I made on talk, not that they are that relevant for 3RR. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That "ahem" is unnecessary. As for my interaction with that other editor, I can tell that our interaction has been innocuous and normal - I included some images into article, at that point without sections, which (s)he deemed too large and decided to create gallery, after which I reorganized entire article into sections and repositioned and resized images back into corresponding sections which at that point looked very much OK. There was no reverts on ether sides, just normal enhancement.
 * I have no excuse for breaching 3RR, except that I am not an editor with a knack for edit-warring, and that those two sets of edits came across two days.
 * But neither do you for your own 3RR breach before me; you certainly have no excuse for doing some things that would throw off balance most editors. You interacted with me as if you couldn't care less for my point of view, throwing back at me same template in which I informed you of WP:ARBEE, or giving explanations like "rvt to better", but most unfairly, you used one dispute, which I resolved simply by abandoning my edit, to justify removal of my other unrelated contribution without ever acknowledging the fact. In essence, you continued to edit-war and revert me over trivial but common-sense edits on the article structure (layout, setting up sections) without any kind of explanation related to that edits, continuously using earlier dispute as a pretext.
 * And, by the way, I never removed anything because you never contributed anything, except one bare url ref to some Bible blog, which I recovered. Although in the last group of your edits you did include some minimal but unnecessary, completely trivial info with one ref, but that seem more like an alibi or excuse move than sensible contribution. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  18:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * More raving! For the 2nd time, I didn't add the gallery, that was the other editor you reverted. I'll let others judge how "unnecessary, completely trivial" these additions, which you reverted are. It's true they don't mention Bosnia at all, which obviously damns them in your eyes. I don't mind your "layout" changes too much, but there are too many short sections, and too many images fixed very small. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

User:SubtleChuckle reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Rahil1610 (talk) to last revision by SubtleChuckle"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Rahil1610 (talk) to last revision by SubtleChuckle"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Rahil1610 (talk) to last revision by SubtleChuckle"

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

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

Comments:

I have reminded editor in the article talk page, the Afd discussion page as well as when the editor requested page protection about the 3RR, yet they continue to do so. Equine-man (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , I see issues, but the choice of diffs above is rather poor, as restoring AfD notices is generally fine and removing them isn't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for comment, will improve on my reporting. Equine-man (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * for disruptive editing including the accusation in Special:Diff/1157290750. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "its not a better image everyone on twitter agreed this should be the pic can you literally stop???"
 * 2)  "okay and?? she doesn't look like that anymore pls yall full of excuses"
 * 3)  "Added a more recent photo of slayyyter performing live"
 * 4)  "added a more high quality photo"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1157342199 by Discospinster (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1157342115 by Discospinster (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1157341932 by Discospinster (talk)"
 * 8)  "Please stop changing it and respect her privacy"
 * 9)  "Slayyyter has stated on twitter that she is uncomfortable with people using her legal name and to respect her privacy."
 * 1)  "Slayyyter has stated on twitter that she is uncomfortable with people using her legal name and to respect her privacy."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has edit warred for two different reasons on the same page to force their revision. I just sent an edit warring notice, but I feel as though the user is not here to build an encyclopedia and, had the page not been protected, would've kept edit warring.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 23:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I would've reverted their image, but I found this situation by reverting another vandal so I didn't want to get caught in an edit war myself.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 23:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * LMFAO WHAT? its just an image that Slayyyter in her cathy gc on twitter told me to put, the way you're pissed about an image PLEASE. PregnantTekeisha (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A Twitter group chat is not the place to achieve Wikipedia consensus.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 23:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaand personal attacks.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 23:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Solomon The Magnifico reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: Two participants partially blocked 2 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: See the three most recent threads at Talk:Bangladesh

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

Comments: <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City O f  Silver </b> 20:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It takes multiple editors to edit war, and was clearly also a participant.
 * , from editing this specific article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

User:24.187.28.171 reported by User:Willondon (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

After an edit reflecting the AfD close, an initial attempt to revert the redirect was made by another IP on April 2. On May 29, a registered user made efforts to restore an article over the redirect, probably innocent of the history of the article. Since then, the IP being reported has made outright reverts, with no engagement at all, either through edit summaries or responses on their talk page, or the article's talk page. signed, Willondon (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Though of course if they keep attempting to restore the article things can change. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Prozepiti reported by User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   Initial warning
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bryan Slaton."

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

Comments:

Repeated single-issue edit warring over whether the name of an accuser should be included in the article. Numerous editors have expressed that the accuser's name is not published in a reliable source but the single-purpose account continues. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When I have had to RevDel every single edit and some of the accompanying edit summaries for an account created at the beginning of the month that has edited only this article, NOTHERE is a very easy call. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

User:罗放 reported by User:Grnrchst (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * Contrary to what Fang believes, (and as has subsequently and correctly pointed out), "removing large blocks of text without discussion" is not the kind of clear and obvious vandalism that 3RRNO allows endless reverts of. It is annoying (assuming the text is sourced) and can be disruptive enough to entail blocks under the right circumstances, but it is not vandalism. That exception in 3RRNO is written specifically because there have been, are and will be editors who attempt to justify their edit warring by defining whatever edit they continually revert as vandalism. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments: