Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive469

User:Brettlm reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Brettlm is repeatedly restoring disputed content to a WP:BLP that attempts to draw a negative conclusion about the subject based on the use of two sources, neither of which directly support that conclusion. This same edit was previously reverted by another admin, based on the same WP:SYNTH concerns. -- Ponyo bons mots 21:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No negative conlcusion or any conclusion was presented my with edits. Here is the extact copy. Citations are direct primary evidence of each statement. I was not aware of the 3-edit rule. No matter. I am requesting arbitration on this issue because these facts are critical to documenting the current economic situation. It appears some tenured editors like Ponyo are drawing their own conclusions and imposing their bias on repressing facts.
 * Edits: In July 2020 Macklem said "If you've got a mortgage or if you're considering to make a major purchase [sic], or you're a business and you are considering making an investment you can be confident that interest rates will be low for a long time." [citation] Twenty months later The Bank of Canada began increaseing interest rates at a historic rate. [citation] Brettlm (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The place to make that argument is the article talk page, which I explained to you here, not at this noticeboard after you've restored the disputed content four times despite warnings.-- Ponyo bons mots 21:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to resolve the dispute there. As part of the dispute arbitration process I am required to attempt beyond the usual. I was not able to resolve the dispute with you imposing you own bias and conclusions on factual evidence. You will be contacted by Wikipedia as part of the official dispute. Good luck. Brettlm (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48h. I was going to offer the user the opportunity to self-revert and avoid a block, but their last comment tipped the scales in favor of a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , you block conflicted me on a NOTHERE indef, actually. Courcelles (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , ha, someone less lenient than I, who would've thunk it? OTOH, I don't object to your increasing the block, but, OTOH, it doesn't seem fair to the user. Maybe they'll behave after expiration of the 48h block, one never knows.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I’m not doing it now, but I said this as a clear warning they are on treacherous ground. Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They'll likely not raise a fuss either way because, as of now, the WP:BLP/WP:SYNTH-violating material is still in the article.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Red9875 reported by User:Interstatefive (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I’m trying to keep my personal information private interstatefive, you would do the same thing"
 * 2)  "Removed IP personal information again"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1157802395 by Interstatefive (talk) Not on my watch"
 * 4)  "What part of stop adding our IP address information do you NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!"
 * 5)  "KNOCK IT OFF!!!!"
 * 6)  "STOP ADDING PIT PERSONAL IP ADDRESSED INFORMATION IN HERE!!!! Seriously I MEAN IT!!!!! MY MOM DOES NOT WANT THIS IN HERE, WE WANT PIT INFORMATION PRIVATE"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1157798732 by Callmemirela (talk) Again, my mother does not want our IP Addresses listed in here, this is for our safety. Do NOT put our person information in here please!"
 * 8)  "Do NOT give out my IP Address personal information, you literally gave me a huge massive panic attack this past Saturday, my mother does not want all this info here. Keep it all private"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor has been consistently blanking another editor's user subpage with a list of "hedgehog socks", which is fine to have in your userspace. After multiple reverts by the user (plus one by a different user and one by me), they have not stopped. They have not only violated the 3RR but also the 7RR (I know that doesn't exist, but I made it up to emphasize how much they have reverted).  interstate five   02:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * For reference, Red9875 is a sock of my user page in question. – Callme mirela &#127809; 02:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if they weren't a sock, they were NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:WhatNameShouldIHave reported by User:Soetermans (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1157747790 by Ferret (talk)"
 * 2)  "Added Weapons list."
 * 1)  "Added Weapons list."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * And even if it were, no diffs of attempts to resolve the dispute, nor notification of this report on the user's talk page, were posted in the report. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Exdg77 reported by User:Aman.kumar.goel (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1157751586 by Capitals00 (talk) rv disruptive revert, with no reason put forward for reverting the changes to the lead."
 * 2)  "Tharoor has been completely replaced wherever I cited him with scholarly alternatives . Please do not use Tharoor as a justification to do a blanket revert.  All the edits I have made are properly sourced from scholarly literature."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1157645340 by Capitals00 (talk) this was not the subject of an edit war? I incorporated feedback and have added other sources to make up for whatever perceived problems with using Tharoor here and there."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1157610456 by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) Tharoor follows scholarly material which I can put as the primary source instead if there is a consensus he is not to used? He is not the only source I used. And what justification is there for reverting the lead, whcih draws from the main body of the article?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1157609542 by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) the edits have been fully sourced with scholarly works, and the lead only includes material from the main body of the article. I disagree with this revert."

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

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

Comments:

Clear cut edit warring and page ownership. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion on Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru started at 02:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC). I started the discussion to be constructive and reach a consensus after I learned about editing warring and the Three-Revert Rule. For context, User:Aman.kumar.goel has seemingly agreed about the edits I made to the main body of the article, but User:Aman.kumar.goel keeps reverting the lead without providing a proper justification. I made the most recent revert at 20:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC) after User:Aman.kumar.goel  reverted the lead without reaching consensus, and without providing a justification, or attempting to engage in any debate to that end. As for the rules, I was first informed about edit warring at 17:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC), and the Three-revert-rule at 19:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC). Since then, I have made edits at 19:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC), 01:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC), and 03:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC) within a 24 hour period. The most recent revert at 20:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC) was after the 24 hour period. To clarify, I have slept and woke up after reading to improve the article, and working on it all day. It is not strategic on my end to get around the rule, if anyone is wondering. Additionally, I should stress that the revert at 01:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) has little to do with any of the previous editing dispute. Another user User talk:Capitals00 reverted reference formatting I had done, which is why I am confused and state "this was not the subject of an edit war?". I then mentioned the editing dispute because I think User talk:Capitals00 reverted something that he did not mean to. As such, I contend that the revert 01:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC) should not be considered evidence of edit-warring and the Three Revert Rule. I only hope to be constructive and engaging to any and all feedback, and responded to User:Aman.kumar.goel, and another user User:DaxServer on Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru about the disputes. At all times, I offered compromise and willingness to make changes to reach consensus. Eventually, User:Aman.kumar.goel seemingly stopped disputing edits to the main body of the article. However, the user is now still reverting the lead, without any justification. In this, I have been supported by the user User:Neveselbert, who reverted User:Aman.kumar.goel's reverting of the lead at  18:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC), with the edit summary of "rv disruptive reversion of good-faith edits". I contend that onus is on the User:Aman.kumar.goel to provide a justification for reverting the lead, without offering justifications on the talk page, or information on the edit summary. I contend that the User:Aman.kumar.goel is displaying edit-warring and page ownership behavior in attempting to maintain a preferred version of the lead section without any constructing debate about changes, or the lack thereof. Exdg77 (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum. You can also observe on my talk page User_talk:Exdg77 that I responded to User:Aman.kumar.goel's notification of an editing dispute by offering to debate and reach consensus, around 19:58, 29 May 2023, just 10 minutes he wrote on my page. I was ignored, and User:Aman.kumar.goel kept escalating his reverts until it has now come to this. In any case, another user User:Fowler&fowler has reverted the lead too. I had sounded him out on his talk page to debate the changes. I am going to defer to that user's rationale for doing so for now. There is no editing dispute from my perspective for the time being.
 * Exdg77 (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exdg77 is a new user who is learning the ropes. They seem to be amenable to discussion.  They should be cut some slack.  But they should stay away from highly trafficked controversial article and should instead cut their teeth on small, disregarded pages.  I don't believe they are ready for the big pages.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because 3RR is the only real bright-line rule of Wikipedia, it should require serious extenuating circumstances to not enforce. These aren't present here. We do not typically waive it for "new users learning the ropes." Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Jad Krimeed reported by User:Pppery (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margham&diff=prev&oldid=1156911936

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margham&diff=1157584736&oldid=1157583094
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margham&diff=prev&oldid=1157581839
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margham&diff=1157416204&oldid=1157368638
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margham&diff=1157358692&oldid=1157334689
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margham&diff=1157078415&oldid=1157077849
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margham&diff=1157071327&oldid=1156940046

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jad_Krimeed&diff=prev&oldid=1157274402

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margham&diff=prev&oldid=1157275301

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jad_Krimeed&diff=prev&oldid=1157590794

Comments:

Not technically a 3RR violation as the reverts are spread out over several days, but nevertheless disruptive edit warring. Some of the edits are by an IP who is clearly the same person editing while logged out. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked. I've also blocked Special:contributions/94.207.250.234, the user's IP, for one week. The user appears to be doing the same thing here as they did at it.wiki, where they've also been indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much Pppery and Bbb23 - I was at my wit's end with this one. I didn't want to go to ANI, because it's a cesspit basically, but these edits are widespread and wholly disruptive/unhelpful. I had reported it to an admin, but she didn't take it up. Is there any way to rollback the whole lot, because there's very little merit in any of it - we're looking at non-existent 'communities', banged in with a template that lists a bibliography of books that don't even mention them, images that are recaptioned from generic 'desert picture' to specifically mention a place that is only a marker in a GIS map. There are also duplicates like Al O'shoosh for Al-Ashoosh and Al Meryal / Mereiyeel - and redlinks on pretty much every page. AND mad claims like the Rub Al Khali being in the desert south of Dubai - it's not. I can't see merit to any of it, but I also don't have time for the cleanup... Best - and thanks again - Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the new creations will be handled properly by New Page Patrol without the need for an explicit cleanup effort, and Bbb23 has already draftified many of them. I'll look more closely at the edits to existing articles when I get a chance tomorrow. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Pppery - I've started in and will also come back and likely PROD most of the new creations and generally restore pages that have had their content replaced by GIS markers and the like. There's quite a lot of it, though! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I spent way too much time reviewing all the article creations. My decision as to whether to draftify them was not exactly scientific. It was more how "ugly" they were in terms of material and references. Also, I did not verify references because that would have taken way longer, and I didn't have the energy or the stomach for it. Obviously, if the places are hoaxes - or even if there are enough hoax claims - they can be tagged WP:G3. The articles can also be nominated for deletion. The drafts can too, but deleting drafts through discussion is harder. I still don't understand how the user was able to so rapidly create the pages. Were they copying something from somewhere? If so, I couldn't figure out the source. Why were they using a additional citations needed maintenance template dated July 2016 for all the articles? Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but there's something else going on here, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out what.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted all of the article overwrites except for Lahbab where the old stable version was entirely unsourced. I'll leave the new article creations for new page patrol to handle * Pppery * it has begun... 15:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jad appears to have been using a PDF of some Municipality land usage demarcation document, and copy/pasting a template of core content into each new article (the bibliography, for instance, is just two random UAE-focused books, there's no linkage to these places) with the name, as usual a transliteration from Arabic, and faking a picture using generic desert images from Commons. Lahbab is little more than a roundabout with some shops and a truck stop, but I'll try and expand that article tomorrow as well as try and review the state of things/creations. I'd hoped notifying an admin would have nipped this issue in the bud earlier, but am glad the template (presumably) triggered this process! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's everything fixed now, thanks again Pppery and Bbb23. There's some mess in the template Neighbourhoods and Areas of Dubai that I can't work out because I'm a dolt, but I think reason has generally been restored. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Cossde reported by User:Oz346 (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=1157686361&oldid=1157681492
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=1157693545&oldid=1157692309
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=1157712538&oldid=1157695099
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=1157713965&oldid=1157712931

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACossde&diff=1157870823&oldid=1153769569

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=1157714350&oldid=1157712890

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACossde&diff=1157871161&oldid=1157870823

Comments:

Please see discussion below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple_conduct_issues_with_user_Cossde


 * Reply: As evedent in  the objective of this incident report is to ilicite personal retribution, it has been confirmed by an Adminstrator that Oz346 has engaged in a personal attack against me. Cossde (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:അദ്വൈതൻ reported by User:NebY (Result: Partially blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Lead section specified. For disagreements, follow up the talk page."
 * 2)  "Follow up the talk page. Check the cited valid sources if any dispute arises. Improvements made with genuine valid citations aren't supposed to be simply revert. If there is any dispute on the sources cited, discuss it in the talk page. Avoid edit warring"
 * 3)  "Restored. Check the cited valid sources if any dispute arises. Improvements made with genuine valid citations aren't supposed to be simply revert. If there is any dispute on the sources cited, discuss it in the talk page. Avoid edit warring"
 * 4)  "Check the cited valid sources if any dispute arises. Improvements made with genuine valid citations aren't supposed to be simply revert. If there is any dispute on the sources cited, discuss it in the talk page. Avoid edit warring"
 * 5)  "Lead section specified"
 * 6)  "POV edit of lead section removed"
 * 7)  "Check the cited valid sources if any dispute arises. Improvements made with genuine valid citations aren't supposed to be simply reverted. If there is any dispute on the sources cited, talk."
 * 1)  "POV edit of lead section removed"
 * 2)  "Check the cited valid sources if any dispute arises. Improvements made with genuine valid citations aren't supposed to be simply reverted. If there is any dispute on the sources cited, talk."
 * 1)  "Check the cited valid sources if any dispute arises. Improvements made with genuine valid citations aren't supposed to be simply reverted. If there is any dispute on the sources cited, talk."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In April 2023, editor was warned and then blocked for 1 week for edit-warring on this same article, which I hadn't noticed when I warned them after their fifth reverting/undoing-work-of-others edit in the last 24 hours. Editor continued to edit-war. NebY (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * from editing this article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Cortador reported by User:Czello (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Revision as of 07:03, 31 May 2023
 * 2)  Revision as of 07:46, 31 May 2023
 * 3)  Revision as of 08:16, 31 May 2023
 * 4)  Latest revision as of 08:27, 31 May 2023

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The four edits that Czello labels as "reverts" above are only three. The fourth edit is my original contribution to the article, and not a revert. Despite linking to the talk page, Czello himself has done two reverts himself, and has made no effort to resolve the issue on the talk page. Also, this is the second time that Czello falsely labels an original edit of mine as a "revert" (see here ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 16:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WikiLawyering isn't a good look. Also, per WP:EW, it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule. — Czello (music) 16:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You know what also isn't a good look? Repeatedly making false accusations. Cortador (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn’t false, hence the block. — Czello (music) 18:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. You, for the second time, claims original edits to be reverts. Cortador (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cortador, an admin reviewed this and found you were in the wrong. You can continue to misunderstand how WP:EW works all you like but it's likely to just earn you more blocks in the future if you resume. — Czello (music</i>) 20:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of which changes that you repeatedly made false claims. That why you never took your first accusation to the admins (though you kept making empty threats). Cortador (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * from editing this specific article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

User:92.40.218.255 reported by User:Yae4 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "My undo is NOT vandalism. Please get your head out of your ass. Undid revision 1157971115 by Yae4 (talk)"
 * 2)  "PLEASE CITE SECONDARY SOURCES. libreboot.at doesn't even have any releases, half of the website doesn't work, and it isn't mentioned anywhere. it's basically a mirror of old libreboot and even links directly to releases from libreboot proper, rather than having their own. completely spurious reference that does not belong on wikipedia at all. thank you.Undid revision 1157969704 by Yae4 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Once again removed link with spuriously primary source (does not meet Wikipedia citation guidelines) - Undid revision 1157968780 by Yae4 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Delete link that only has *primary* sources. Why they are primary: whois on libreboot.at domain reveals "GNU Hostmaster" and (at least today) has the same IP address subnet as GNU.org. The people involved are also heavily involved with GNU and FSF, for example Adrien was a Libreplanet presenter and Denis was a replicant developer which gets FSF funding, and has written on fsf blog several times in the past. (Denis and Adrien are the leaders of libreboot.at)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Open-source firmware‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* double standards much? */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* double standards much? */ SPA"

Comments:

See also their activity at Libreboot and my user talk. Yae4 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: A series of IPs in the same range appear to be the same person. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Behavior similarity of, now in a 1-year block: Special:Diff/1040594016/1040731767. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:185.234.68.71 reported by User:Czello (Result: /28 range blocked 48 hours; article semi-protected for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1158032279 by Cambial Yellowing (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1158031997 by Cambial Yellowing (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1158031816 by Slatersteven (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1158030786 by Slatersteven (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note as well IP 185.234.68.79 []. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , the /28 range that includes both IPs used. has also semi-protected the page for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Bethsheba Ashe (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

diff=next&oldid=1154100705 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff=next&oldid=1155113927]
 * 2) [diff=next&oldid=1157915310]
 * 3) [diff=next&oldid=1157922943]
 * 4) [diff=next&oldid=1157934487]
 * 5) [diff=next&oldid=1157934874]
 * 6) [diff=prev&oldid=1158023543]
 * 7) [diff=next&oldid=1158023640]
 * 8) [diff=next&oldid=1158025092]
 * 9) [diff=next&oldid=1158026997]
 * 10) [diff=next&oldid=1158049497]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gematria [link]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gematria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bethsheba_Ashe[diff]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Skyerise#I'm_reporting_you_for_edit_warring_on_the_Gematria_page [diff]

Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Titus Gold reported by User:DeCausa (Result: 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)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive talk page discussion across multiple issues

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

Comments:

These edits are different and it is unfair to lump them together as warring. ThanksTitus Gold (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Please note this editors' behaviour at this and other articles is currently under discussion at ANI: WP:ANI. DeCausa (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a separate discussion and disputed. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that there are a large number of reverts outside of the 24 hour window... So instead of "to lump them together as warring" DeCausa has actually presented a rather concise case. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked one week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:Bethsheba Ashe (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1155113927

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 18:47, 16 May 2023
 * 19:41, 31 May 2023
 * 22:18, 31 May 2023
 * 22:22, 31 May 2023
 * 13:50, 1 June 2023
 * 13:51, 1 June 2023
 * 14:19, 1 June 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1158056318

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1158056318

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1158062079

Comments:


 * I have refactored this malformed report and, as part of that, removed entries within "Diffs of the user's reverts" that are not edits by the reported user. Is this what you wanted your report to be like?—Alalch E. 21:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thank you so much! I will learn from this. :-) Bethsheba Ashe (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The above-cited diffs do not clearly seem to qualify as reverts; they're not marked as such, and seem to be more mostly a case of adding material that other editors did not want in the article, or removing something as unsourced (which is perfectly permissible as long as it isn't escalated into edit warring). I allow that if they consisted of clear reverts of the same thing, more or less, there would have been a block. It also seems from the last post on the talk page, and the absence of any edits to the article since then, that this dispute has been resolved. Nonetheless I implore Skyerise to familiarize themselves with WP:SELFCITE: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason ...". In the future, it might be a good idea to actually check what policy actually says before embarking on an edit war in which you claim to be the one enforcing policy since rulemaking by assumption isn't a defense to edit warring (and to be fair, neither are most policies). Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

User:220.236.126.177 reported by User:PhinsUp23 (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_National_Rugby_League_records&oldid=1157694826 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_National_Rugby_League_records&oldid=1158176469

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_National_Rugby_League_records&diff=prev&oldid=1158165524
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_National_Rugby_League_records&diff=prev&oldid=1158177071
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_National_Rugby_League_records&diff=prev&oldid=1158179312
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_National_Rugby_League_records&diff=prev&oldid=1158180255
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_National_Rugby_League_records&diff=prev&oldid=1158181969

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is the 2nd time this IP user has engaged in this sort of behaviour over the last month. They were previously blocked for two weeks for consistently reverting another section of the same page (discussion on talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_National_Rugby_League_records#Wayne's_900). I have not mentioned the current issues on the article talk page, but did attempt to do so on their user talk page and mentioned how the source I suspect they were using was out of date in my own revert. They have refused to explain their reason and instead deleted my comments from their talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.236.126.177&diff=cur&oldid=1158182078).

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.236.126.177&diff=prev&oldid=1158184139 They have almost immediately removed the notice from their talk page, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:220.236.126.177&diff=prev&oldid=1158184892

Comments:

This really should not be an issue. I can somewhat understand the point of view they held in the previous controversy that they were blocked for, which has since been resolved by adding a note showing both sides of the issue, but this is a clear-cut case of denying simple facts. Verifying that their source is outdated is simple, as it only requires being able to count to 12, while they have refused to explain how they calculate their percentages, which is a basic mathematical equation. 58.333 rounding down to 58.33 instead of rounding up to 58.34 is not something that any rational person should be disputing. If my own behaviour also seems out of line, I apologize, as the fact that this is even an issue at all is extremely frustrating and I tried to give valid reasoning behind my initial reverts of the IP user's reverts before stopping and resorting to this process. PhinsUp23 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This reporting is completely uncalled for and a waste of time. Yet you did it anyway. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP for three months, given their previous history of being blocked for this, and doing it again right off the end of the two-week block I imposed when this issue was last before us (Or was it at RFPP? I can't remember). The user's BATTLEGROUND mentality isn't helping, either. But they are not solely at fault here. I have blocked Phins for 24 hours as he has not been blocked for anything previously. However, previous good conduct does not translate into a free pass when users edit war with known edit warriors (and Phins' report above demonstrates his awareness of at least my previous block). We cannot let ourselves be dragged down. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

User:94.13.62.241 reported by User:Dora the Axe-plorer (Result: Blocked 72 hours and page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1158196505 by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) sockpuppet of user:Blueberry72"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1158193783 by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) sock of user:Blueberry72"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1158183193 by Blueberry72 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1158143923 by Blueberry72 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

block evasion Long-term abuse/MariaJaydHicky Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC) There's now a block request at AIV, and a page protection request thus far pending. Both actions would be appropriate. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Correction: has responded. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * and for 2 months Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Guns & Glory reported by User:Loafiewa (Result: 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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (opening of discussion)  (informing user of WP:RMUM)

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

Comments:

This report is really unnecessary. I made the bold move to rename the page 'AS Val and VSS Vintorez' to "VSS and AS" because that is their respective official nomenclature. You reverted it due to an issue of 'COMMON NAME'. Then we had a discussion on the talk page where I suggested to rename the article to 'VSS (Vintorez) and AS (Val)' as a middle ground option. You did not bother to leave a comment on my suggestion. So after a week I took the liberty to assume you were fine with that change. Thus, I moved the page to 'VSS (Vintorez) and AS (Val)'. The new tittle does not contradict the common name rule and at the same time gives distinction to the rifles official designation and their project names (Vintorez and Val). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guns & Glory (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * To add. I did not make multiple reverts within the span of 24 hours. I did not revert anything at all. I simply moved the page to a more accurate name, Guns &#38; Glory (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , your undiscussed re-move after move protection was a disruptive action to take. See WP:RMCM for instructions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

User:103.183.45.2 reported by User:North of the Zambezi (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */Fixed grammar"
 * 2)  "/* Gallery */ Fixed grammar"
 * 3)  "/* top */Fixed grammar"
 * 4)  "/* top */The former name is in the history column so no need to add it in intro coz it is an Intro"
 * 1)  "/* top */The former name is in the history column so no need to add it in intro coz it is an Intro"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User:बॉट reported by User:240F:31:3402:1:44C6:DFA8:21CE:17C0 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:, , ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: special:MobileDiff/1158461242

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "no edit summary"
 * 2)  "no edit summary"
 * 3)  "no edit summary"
 * 4)  "no edit summary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1)  "‎Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion: new section"

Comments:

We have seen malicious behavior in the past and would appreciate your strict judgment. 240F:31:3402:1:44C6:DFA8:21CE:17C0 (talk) 11:03 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 240F:31:3402:1:44C6:DFA8:21CE:17C0, please have a look at the block reason I've provided at User talk:बॉट and consider whether (or how much) it applies to you as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is almost anywhere I fit the block. Thank you. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. We will continue to strive for quality improvement.240F:31:3402:1:44C6:DFA8:21CE:17C0 (talk) 11:50 4 June 2023 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:31:3402:1:A833:635D:EB8B:FB7 (talk)
 * Your message indicates otherwise. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User:174.89.127.74 reported by User:LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby (Result: Blocked and protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */Fixed typo"
 * 2)  "/* Further reading */Fixed typos"
 * 3)  "/* References */Fixed typos"
 * 4)  "Fixes typo errors"
 * 5)  "/* Content */Fixed typos"
 * 6)  "/* Operation */Fixed typos"
 * 1)  "/* Content */Fixed typos"
 * 2)  "/* Operation */Fixed typos"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked for a month and page protected. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:645:4201:6D71:888B:97CA:D6C7:8FA reported by User:LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby (Result: Pblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Adding relevant info regarding the literature “Cypher Circle: Breakdance Unlimited”."
 * 2)  "Adding relevant information regarding the literature “Cypher Circle: Breakdance Unlimited” which is a comic focusing on breakdancing and is a valid addition to breakdance related literature."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

promotional  Lu Gus Declan Biba  Elodie Barnaby  17:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Partial rangeblocked from Breakdancing for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

User:2603:6011:E01:6837:4C2E:875D:2027:1A1D reported by User:LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1158556321 by LuGusDeclanBibaElodieBarnaby (talk)"
 * 2)  "Naomi Willie Pollard Endowed Chair for the Department of Performance Studies and Professor of Theatre at Northwestern University"
 * 1)  "Naomi Willie Pollard Endowed Chair for the Department of Performance Studies and Professor of Theatre at Northwestern University"
 * 1)  "Naomi Willie Pollard Endowed Chair for the Department of Performance Studies and Professor of Theatre at Northwestern University"
 * 1)  "Naomi Willie Pollard Endowed Chair for the Department of Performance Studies and Professor of Theatre at Northwestern University"
 * 1)  "Naomi Willie Pollard Endowed Chair for the Department of Performance Studies and Professor of Theatre at Northwestern University"
 * 1)  "Naomi Willie Pollard Endowed Chair for the Department of Performance Studies and Professor of Theatre at Northwestern University"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

also potential SPA  Lu Gus Declan Biba  Elodie Barnaby  20:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

User:122.164.84.18 reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You stop edit warring and  stop removing it again, just accept the fact and truth that tamil is required to be shown as it is the oldest language of this country which Shiva spoke and live with!!!!!!!"
 * 2)  "You first wait for consensus before removing it. Same here, it is not the place for linguistic battles. Tamil is the oldest classical language even before Sanskrit existed! If you can have your preferred classical language, why not tamil as it is the oldest one of all. It is your ignorance and personal bias which is the actual problem. Shiva spoke tamil and being the oldest language in the world, it must be included!!!!"
 * 3)  "Don't remove, there is a discussion created! Users are not entertained to show their language hatredness. As Tamil is the oldest language in than world than sanksrit and Shiva spoke it. There is nothing wrong to add it, it's the editing people's hatred to remove the oldest language when they can include Sanskrit!"
 * 4)  "Tamil is older than Sanskrit. the people who remove this edit are 'no one' to change it and thanks for your hatred! If Sanskrit can be included then why not the oldest language which Shiva invented!"
 * 5)  "Sanskrit name included"
 * 6)  "Including Tamil word of Shiva: சிவா"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 

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

Comments:

See discussion at Talk:Shiva. Also edit-warring at Brahma. The articles may potentially need semi-protection. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Salander2000 reported by User:Asheiou (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "incorrect info and inaccurate source; actual source not cited."
 * 2)  "/* Legal issues */ Incorrect information; contradicts previous sentence which states appeal was not granted due to time delays, not due to upholding of previous ruling."
 * 3)  "/* Legal issues */ incorrect information, which is reflected by the fact it contradicts the reasons stated in the previous sentence."
 * 4)  "incorrect information"
 * 5)  "/* Legal issues */ The appeal is still underway and the last line in this section is false and libelous - the appeal was NOT upheld, but dismissed due to time delays, which is why that decision is under appeal."
 * 6)  "/* Legal issues */ Hi there, you currently reverted an edit I made on the Elisa Hategan wikipedia page. The reason I edited it (but it keeps getting reverted) is because the legal issues are under appeal and in contention, and at least one of the sources used is an article written by a friend of the other litigants. The appeal is still underway and the last line in this section is false and libelous - the appeal was NOT upheld, but dismissed due to time delays, and the source doesn't indicate it"
 * 7)  "/* Legal issues */"
 * 8)  "/* Legal issues */ The paragraph is INCORRECT, the Ontario Court of Appeal did NOT uphold Ferguson's ruling. The appeal was dismissed due to time constraints and it is currently under review"
 * 9)  "/* Legal issues */ incorrect information, litigation in progress, libellous info"
 * 10)  "libellous section containing inaccurate details"
 * 1)  "/* Legal issues */ incorrect information, litigation in progress, libellous info"
 * 2)  "libellous section containing inaccurate details"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of content from Elisa Hategan */ Reply"

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Filer informed about the inaccuracy of their advice to the reported user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Aussie information editor reported by User:Nick Thorne (Result: Blocked from article for three days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The editor is trying to change the number of ships in commission for the RAN based upon their synthesis of the original numbers and changes reported by the ABC. The user refuses to engage on the talk page. - <b style="color: darkblue">Nick Thorne</b> <sup style="color: darkblue">talk 06:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * from article. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't feel this block is fair given i have used credible information from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) to update the information. Users from other countries fail to identify this and undo the changes without any explanation.   Aussie information editor (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted in the standard edit warring warning (you know, or should know, the one you deleted from your talk page after receiving), "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." You did. And then ignored the discussion started on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

User:108.185.180.195 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Pblocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restore POV tag as there has been no constructive resolution at this time"
 * 2)  "unwarranted revision - see NO CONSENSUS on the talk page"
 * 3)  "flag article NPOV while discussion suggested by user Zefr is ongoing"
 * 4)  "/* Health Benefits */"
 * 5)  "/* Health Benefits */"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1158868625 by Zefr (talk)"
 * 7)  "add section on health benefits with links to studies"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1158868625 by Zefr (talk)"
 * 2)  "add section on health benefits with links to studies"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Saturated fat."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Saturated fat."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Saturated fat."
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Saturated fat."

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

Comments:

IP editor is adding primary research and non-consensus content to article. Just started editing article today, and has not waited for development of consensus on talk page. WP:CON has shown, and will show again, the existing version has been recently updated and vigorously edited over several years on the topic in question. Zefr (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pblocked for two weeks by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User:68.105.140.229 reported by User:Wpscatter (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1158910695 by Wpscatter (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1158893242 by Discospinster (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1158854711 by Discospinster (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision due to well known famous local person and philanthropist being removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.4)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was warned about adding non-notable people to lists and later about edit warring. No communication other than re-adding the entry to the list. WP scatter t/c 01:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User:69.115.104.232 reported by User:BaldiBasicsFan (Result: Declined – malformed report)
This user is back at reverting edits without consensus again, here is proof for what is so:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unicorn:_Warriors_Eternal&oldid=1158859000
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unicorn:_Warriors_Eternal&diff=prev&oldid=1158859000
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unicorn:_Warriors_Eternal&diff=prev&oldid=1158909722

This repeated behavior needs to get a stop finally. This IP editor, who acts WP:NOTHERE, constantly believes that Unicorn is not supposed to be an adult show, but when others watch the show, it is considered adult animation. It is especially apparent as it airs on Adult Swim. The IP editor did not listen what I said to their talk page, so I assume NOTHERE behavior yet again. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User:AlanS reported by User:Gugrak (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undo revision 1158662829 by Gugrak (talk) I've addressed you on talk. Do not engage in bad-faith behaviour be accusing others of edit warring."
 * 2)  "Undo revision 1158661882 by Gugrak (talk) My mistake re: vandalism. In any case I've addressed what you have stated in talk. The facts are no longer mere allegations."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1158656150 by Gugrak (talk) these are no longer allegations, they are proven facts. Do yourself a favour and don't engage in bad-faith behavour by labelling my edits vandalism."
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by Carter00000 (talk): There is no stable version of this page as it is evolving. Take to talk if you disagree."
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by Carter00000 (talk): War crimes is a broad term. Murder is a specific claim which was made in judgement. Take it to talk if you disagree."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ben Roberts-Smith."

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

Comments:

User ignoring WP:BRD and not waiting for consensus on talk Gugrak (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Roberts-Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1158658427 Gugrak (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a bad faith report. Reverts with Carter00000 were on different subject matter and this is now the subject of active discussion. Gugrak themselves has engaged in as many reverts as I have and on their talk page as been warned for reverting this very page 8 times within 24 hours. Re: the edit summary this was a mistake which I freely admited to which review of edit histroy will reveal. Bringing up edit summaries without context that I admitted it was a mistake is in bad faith. AlanStalk 13:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

As per the preceding report, user has been edit warring to include contentious BLP material into the article and has been blocked for the edit warring.

I would like to add the following points, given that I feel the case is not limited to simple edit warring. I'd like to ask Admin Bbb23 to assess if further sanctions are required.

Carter00000 (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * User has a history of edit warring, having been previously blocked three times for edit-warring. While the blocks were from 2014, I note that user has made very few edits each year between 2014 and now.
 * In two of the edit summaries, used by user in the above diffs, user refused to address their edits by claiming that the reverting user was required to gain consensus for content removal ("Take it to talk if you disagree"), violating WP:ONUS. User only went to the talk page after a second user reverted. Afterwards, user made multiple edits in other sections related to similar BLP issues.
 * As mentioned by Gugrak, in two of the edit summaries  used by user in the above diffs, user made personal attacks against the reverting editor by casting aspirations. While the user "withdrew" the first PA, they made a second PA in the following edit summary.
 * I think you meant to say "aspersions", not "aspirations". :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Noted on the spelling mistake which I made for the policy reference. Carter00000 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Just adding that I've blocked Gugrak as a sockpuppet of Orchomen. Sro23 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 I'd like to request all record of this block be removed from my record under exception #3 to WP:3RR as user:gugrak was a sockpuppet and reverts beyoynd 3RR are excepted.AlanStalk 13:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Awater01 reported by User:PepGuardi (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
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: [diff]

Comments:


 * Haha, this is the exact same amount of edits you had, and then I'm not counting your earlier edit war. You must be beating yourself on the chest in front of the mirror. What a pathetic behavior. Awater01 (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Please could you stop harassing me and other users? You go on my talk page to harass me, to mock around I am new here (as if it was a problem), then you accuse me of having a behaviour that is actually your misbehaviour, you go to talk page of the article and say everyone who disagree with you is ignorant (in your own words, people who “know very little about”), you revert 4 times not only my edit but other users edits on the article as well, you even deleted the warning I put on your talk page about this report… is that not enough for you? I mean is that hard for you to be friendly and listen other people opinions? PepGuardi (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What?! I'm harassing you? Are you kidding me, haha? You're turning everything around here. Aren't you the one who is bringing this up here and on my talk page? And aren't you also the one who starts an edit war and now complains about one? That kind of behavior is not so friendly either, don't you think? And btw, I have listened/commented on your opinions, they only make little sense. You're clearly just saying something without properly reading the very sources you're citing. I tried to make that clear on the TP, but you simply don't listen. Awater01 (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

User:27.61.180.199 reported by User:Technopat (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Rogan painting."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

User:69.115.104.232 reported by User:BaldiBasicsFan (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unicorn:_Warriors_Eternal&oldid=1158859000
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unicorn:_Warriors_Eternal&diff=prev&oldid=1158859000
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unicorn:_Warriors_Eternal&diff=prev&oldid=1158909722
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unicorn:_Warriors_Eternal&diff=prev&oldid=1158995817

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Constant edit warning with no consensus and going for beliefs instead, which is WP:NOTHERE behavior. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Both sides are edit warring and neither one is using the talk page. Aoidh (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please readd adult animated into the article? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was created in March 2023 and this "adult animated" wording has been in back-and-forth dispute in the history since April 2023. There is no stable version and given that both sides of this dispute meet your description of Constant edit warning with no consensus and going for beliefs instead I'm not going to give preference to one side over another; I protected the version of the article that was current. Use the talk page and get a consensus for the edits (with sources supporting the content, not just WP:OR). I want to be unambiguously clear on this: Since the page was protected you both have made comments on Wikipedia about the state of the article and have continued editing elsewhere, but still have not used the talk page and certainly haven't provided reliable sources for the content. The page was protected so that discussion could take place in lieu of editors being blocked. If this same edit warring resumes after protection expires, that editor will be blocked for edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I used to the talk page to discuss this, and used an IndieWire source for reference. I think IndieWire is considered reliable. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.115.104.232 this user is WP:DE on another article, vandalizing it and removing a reliable source about that Unicorn show being adult animation. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I will discuss this on your talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

User:92.40.219.187 reported by User:Filmssssssssssss (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "please stop vandalising the libreboot article. Yae4 in particular has been obsessing over it for over a week, and even tried to delete it. absolute bad faith and clear conflict of interest (see my entry on the talk page from today, regarding this) Undid revision 1159349602 by Dawnbails (talk)"
 * 2)  "again, why are your edits valid but not mine? and why is my activity edit warring but not yours? you revert literally everything i write. literally everything. nothing i add ever remains. last chance before i report you for abusive editing. logged into my real account. Undid revision 1159349196 by Dawnbails (talk)"
 * 3)  "why are your edits valid just because you say so? there aren't even sources for some of them. stop it. Undid revision 1159348817 by Taking Out The Trash (talk)"
 * 4)  "please stop vandalizing the libreboot article. you know that your edits are in bad faith. i'm going to report you for abusive editing, Yae4. Undid revision 1159348188 by Yae4 (talk)"
 * 5)  "revert persistent vandalism by Yaae4, such as intentionally adding a repository link that 404'd - revert this again and i will report you for edit warring, and general abuse of wikipedia ToS, I see others also complained about you - Undid revision 1159126088 by Yae4 (talk)"
 * 6)  "remove poorly sourced section that does not even relate to the main topic"
 * 1)  "remove poorly sourced section that does not even relate to the main topic"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring at attacks on reverts 𝑭𝒊𝒍𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

the editors in question keep reverting any changes made to the article, and they keep vandalising it themselves. when people reverte their vandalism, they reverte the revert, endlessly, and accuse of edit warring, but it is they who are edit warring.

attempts to talk to them through the talk page are not useful either. they are not editing in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.219.187 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Threatening to report people for "abusive editing" (which you have yet to actually do) because you're block evading and making unconstructive changes is not editing in good faith. Dawnbails (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Appears to be block evasion, another IP from UK. Pinging  -- Yae4 (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Kesc4399 reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 1
 * 2) diff 2
 * 3) diff 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've witnessed some serious edit warring by Kesc4399 and Sundayclose regarding the article of Stephen King, going on since May, maybe longer. Kesce4399 has been adding some things that have been likely unsourced and reverted by Sunnyclose. This needs to be solved. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

User:ISIHossein1995 reported by User:Randykitty (Result: ISIHossein1995 blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I think the brought text is incorrect and I can't hesitate to correct it, it seems there is a malicious intend behind the sentence you added. Please take more concern about the ethics in science. The provided reference is not a reliable one and is just a weblog criticize that may be written by the owner of this edit."
 * 2)  "I think the brought text is incorrect and I can't hesitate to correct it, it seems there is a malicious intend behind the sentence you added. Please take more concern about the ethics in science. Thanks, I provided reliable references, please consider them rather than stuck to and copy paste a previously written text"
 * 3)  "The deleted text is maliciously intended to undermine the mentioned magazine and lacks reliable sources."
 * 4)  "The deleted text is maliciously intended to undermine the mentioned magazine and lacks any reliable and proved sources. More explanation was also added to clearly describe the Journal based on the reliable sources."
 * 5)  "The provided information is not correct and intended by conflict"
 * 1)  "The provided information is not correct and intended by conflict"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Materials (journal)."
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Materials (journal)."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Materials (journal)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Multiple comments on article's and user's talk page and in edit summaries.

Comments:
 * ISIHossein1995 blocked for 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Kuangtianwen reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely; subsequently indefinitely blocked sitewide)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * Warned on talk page: user talk:Kuangtianwen by two senior editors.

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

Comments:


 * This is simply cite spam using an unpublished source. Editor has not attempted communication. Adakiko (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, the source in question isn't even a paper on 'dark energy'. It is much more general, and amounts to little more than the author's claim that physicists are wrong about more or less everything. Run of the mill pseudoscience. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The real pseudoscience is exactly those unperceivable things named with 'dark'. Throwing something into the unknown part of reality for solving the theorical problem is not the real rigorous science. It is time, from a much more general view, to consider the common defects in the principle behind all the previous measure methods or physical laws summarized by the predecessors rather than keep adding new theories or new phenomena for amending the old cracks. Otherwise, the development of science will become bogged down in mud and also lead all people not to the real nature of reality but to a totally strange magic one. Kuangtianwen (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't the place for your personal commentary on the matter. Please see WP:OR. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (partial) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 10:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Now full indef blocked after adding similar nonsense elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Malaysia Skyline reported by User:Corncaker (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I attempted to bring user Malaysia Skyline to the above page's talk page, but zero response from that user.

Comments:

User is engaging in an edit war on multiple pages, George Town, Penang, Penang and Iskandar Malaysia. Attempts to start a discussion were met with zero response. Corncaker (talk) 08:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note Malaysia Skyline initially filed a report against Corncaker but later removed it after I pointed out WP:BOOMERANG. Malaysia Skyline then attempted to delete this new report. Both users appear to have violated WP:3RR. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Corncaker is the first one to start this edit warring, the original edit(Greater Penang as third largest) has been in place for almost a month but he/she was the one who revert that edit without ANY proper reasoning. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Without ANY proper reasoning, you say? You did not see the earlier issue about Iskandar Malaysia's contradictory population figures? You did not see the response I posted on the same page's talk page?
 * All attempts to start a discussion on the proper channel, the talk pages, were met with zero response from you. I leave it to the admins to take a proper check at Malaysia Skyline's edits. Corncaker (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess what that user meant was not regarding the the contradictory population figures, but instead the updated administrative area by IRDA that was even passed into law by Malaysian federal government in 2019 to double the size of Iskandar Malaysia. So perhaps that was why the user claimed that Greater Penang is no longer the second largest urban area in the country by population, and that is true according to Banci 2020. Obsolete information in the official website also cannot be a guideline to write any Wikipedia content. You guys both have mistake, Malaysia Skyline did not see the talkpage and you did not understand what Malaysia Skyline originally meant. That's why we have this issue here. 2405:800:8030:DFCC:1:0:5840:D9E5 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Iskandar Malaysia's own website maintains only 5 local governments, irrespective of what user Malaysia Skyline claims of updated administrative area (http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my/location-map). Pasir Gudang was elevated to a city in 2020, so their own website seems current, even going by their copyright year as their footer.
 * Total population of Iskandar Malaysia's 5 local governments (as calculated) from Banci 2020 was 2,214,006.
 * Greater Penang's was 2,833,957.
 * The addition of a few districts into Iskandar Malaysia does not add up to even 2.7 million (235,715 for Kluang, 130,756 for Kota Tinggi). Until and unless there is a more official, reliable source than the national census saying Iskandar Malaysia's population exceeds Greater Penang's, refer to List of local governments in Malaysia and do the math. Corncaker (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in the dispute. But like what I said, it is very common for a website, even a government website to not being updated continuously, government's official announcement for me is more accurate. And also the population data is not correct for both districts, eg. Kota Tinggi should have 222,382 people. 2405:800:8030:DFCC:1:0:585E:EADC (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note - Further intervention might be required as there has been another few disruptive edits involving @Malaysia Skyline. gavre  (al. PenangLion) (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for overlooking the notifications yesterday, I have continued to participate in the discussion in the talkpage. Malaysia Skyline (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Baseboom reported by User:AlanS (Result: Indefinitely blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Suspect from style and editing that this is User:Gugrak who has been indefinitely blocked because they are a sock.

Clear edit-warring for the sake of it, going so far as to incorrectly revert a correction of the subjects family name that they had pointed out in a previous edit. AlanStalk 13:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I reverted the name change because you did a blanket RV and I needed to do that to revert you other bold removal of sources and your reversal of my good edits. You only just responded to the discussion on talk that I started before running straight here Baseboom (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored your version minus the editorial source Baseboom (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You disagreed, therefore you edit warred? Is that the story you're going with? AlanStalk 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jimgerbig reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: Warned)
User has recently added two long statements of reactions from city officials regarding Keechant Sewell's resignation.

I removed their edit, asking them not to add such long statements and they reverted back without explanation. After I reverted them a second time and asked them to seek a comsensus for their changes, they restored their edit a second time, again with no explanation.

Following this they left a warning on my talk page. And he has still refused to seek a consensus. Their formatting obviously also isn't per Wikipedia's standards nor they've bothered to correct it. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Galaxy21ultra (Result: Nominator blocked)
SUFISM:

Kashmiri :

'

@Kashmiri has been removing authentic sources from the Cambridge Companion of Islamic Theology on the Sufism page. I have tried to reason with him on his talk page but is refusing to engage. I am new to Wiki so if someone can help me with this block request I would be grateful
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Vipersage reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid unfounded and disruptive revision 1159402584 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Viper for 24 hours since they have never been blocked before, Blueboy for a week due to long history of edit-warring blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Vipersage reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1159402108 by BlueboyLINY (talk). Source is indeed reliable, it's the company's website."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Viper for 24 hours since they have never been blocked before, Blueboy for a week due to long history of edit-warring blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Vipersage reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 1159402358 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"

Comments: Viper for 24 hours since they have never been blocked before, Blueboy for a week due to long history of edit-warring blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:BlueboyLINY and User:Vipersage reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

'''Diffs of Vipersage's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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: [diff]

Comments:

Possible content dispute. Who's right? Also, paging Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Viper for 24 hours since they have never been blocked before, Blueboy for a week due to long history of edit-warring blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Enix150 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salvatore_Pais&oldid=1157088816

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1160048258 by MrOllie (talk) that's your third revert today."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1160046076 by MrOllie (talk) you've reverted this page twice now. You're very close to being in violation of WP:3RR. If you want to argue that the sources aren't reliable, then take it to the talk page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1160043616 by MrOllie (talk) there was never a discussion let alone a consensus, and in your previous revert you gave no reason for deleting this section"
 * 4)  "/* Career */"

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

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

Comments: Reverting back text from this revision. MrOllie (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * MrOllie as I warned you several times on your talk page, you are the one who was approaching violation of the WP:3RR rule having already made 3 reverts to the page today. You are prematurely reporting me after my third revert instead of discussing it on the talk page as I asked you to do.

Enix150 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Enix150 (talk): Onus is on you to get consensus for additions"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Enix150 (talk): Edit warring this same collection of unreliable sources won't keep this content in the article"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1159152071 by CodemWiki (talk): Consensus clearly against this"


 * You made 4 reverts, which are listed in the report. The last one came in as I was posting on the talk page, so I brought it here. MrOllie (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. #4 was not a revert. Check your logs again before reporting prematurely. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose we'll see what third parties think. But it is clearly another revert back to the same stuff you tried to add in January and again in May. MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, except that I added the section in January, and the only reason I had to restore it in May is because you were the one that had tried to delete it in April.
 * We had this same issue on the Pentagon UFO videos article, where I also asked you to take it to the talk page and welcomed you to reword the section without deleting it and the citation completely. The difference is that over there you actually did, and we were able to work out a compromise. Enix150 (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Most recent edits don't quite violate 3RR, but there has been a pattern of reinserting this graf regularly for the past couple weeks, then telling editors to go to the talk page, where what consensus there might be seems firmly against including the graf. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Jack4576 reported by User:Nythar (Result: Editor blocked from article indefintely due to technical limitations)
Page:

User being reported:

Version prior to any diff presented below:

Diffs of the user's (Jack4576) reverts:
 * 1)   Striking diff (since the revert involved only the capitalization of the letter "a"). However, the other reverts still amount to a 3RR violation.  Nythar  (💬-🍀) 13:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  <-- this edit brought back the content that Jack4576 added  (e.g., "war criminal").
 * 1)   Striking diff (since the revert involved only the capitalization of the letter "a"). However, the other reverts still amount to a 3RR violation.  Nythar  (💬-🍀) 13:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  <-- this edit brought back the content that Jack4576 added  (e.g., "war criminal").
 * 1)  <-- this edit brought back the content that Jack4576 added  (e.g., "war criminal").

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion, along with a discussion at WP:BLPN here.

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

Comments: This is part of an ongoing edit war between users who believe it is appropriate to refer to Ben Roberts-Smith as a war criminal and users who do not. After I warned Jack4576 for edit warring (which took place after the reverts presented above), he and ordered me to never post at his talk page again: "I am not engaged in an edit war, let alone 'currently involved in edit warring'." "Your accusation is improper. Please never post on my talk page again Nythar". The first claim is false. He has clearly edit warred, and yet he refuses to get the point. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576's response (copied from his talk page):
 * "Only TWO of those diffs are about the use of the word "war criminal" in the opening sentence of the lede.
 * The other edits are about the use of criminal in OTHER areas of the article.
 *  I did not revert another editor three times .
 * I request a WP:BOOMERANG on Nythar for this pointy ANI nomination please.
 * One of the diffs you've quoted in the ANI is a change of a single letter 'a' to 'A'.
 * This ANI nomination is in part motivated, no doubt, by our recent run-ins at ANI over AfD in the past."
 * Please copy the above, verbatim, to the ANI, as I am currently blocked from editing in that space. Thanks.
 * Jack4576 (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Jack4576's second response (copied from his talk page, where he requested the above response be stricken):
 * After reading the context more closely, I can see that the timestamp of this diff on 13 June 2023; (which was a reversion of Iskandar323 )
 * is within 24 hours of these two instances of reversion:
 * Further Reversion number (1) (consisting of these two edits) which reverted Morbidthoughts for a first time
 * Further reversion number (2) (consisting of this edit) which reverted Morbidthoughts for a second time
 * and that I can see this was an breach of the 3RR. As arguably, the content of these edits overlap.
 * However, in my defence, I considered the editorial choice of whether to include the phrase "war criminal" in the opening sentence of the article, was a separate issue as to whether the term "criminal" should be used in the page at all.
 * I accept any punishment meted out in response for that breach; and I apologise for the 24 hour breach.
 * It was not my intention to edit war. I withdraw my request that Nythar be boomeranged.
 * Kind regards
 * Jack4576 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

'''Nythar decided they would drive by tag my usertalk for edit warring or I wouldn't be aware of this. can an admin please do a check if they are User:Gugrak. Nythar might have thought I was up to three reverts myself if they disregarded the fact that one of my reverts was reverting a sock and therefore I was up to two. It's almost 1am in the morning here, can admin please review Nythar reverts on the page and if they violate 3RR sanction appropriately. AlanStalk 14:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @AlanS: I noticed that you continued the edit war today, the same edit war you were blocked for on 4 June; however, I didn't report you because you hadn't reverted 4 edits, only 3 (excluding the where you were aware that the account was a sock):  and  and . You could still get blocked for this, but I thought warning you first was a better idea. And... are you accusing me of being ?  Nythar  (💬-🍀) 14:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find another of those reverts was changing the subjects name from "Roberts" to "Roberts-Smith" and this was done with the consent of the person I reverted and the revert got a thanks from them. Perhaps check update comments where they advised they were reverting to last clean version after sock and invite an revisions if incorrect. The app is working properly right now and I'm on a phone so I can't really check your diffs properly. Per Gugrak, no accusation, simply a request. Given how much that user has been popping up over the last couple of days you'll have to excuse the thought that things may be connected. I do find you coming from nowhere and bringing this up quite abusive given you have had zero engagement on the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page. AlanStalk 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't excuse the thought that things may be connected. Sockpuppetry accusations require quite a bit of evidence. And the edit where you changed "Roberts" to "Roberts-Smith" is the one I excluded (since you were aware you were reverting a sock edit). Other than that, you are edit warring. You also don't seem to have a good idea of Wikipedia processes. For instance, leaving you a 3RR warning is recommended so that you are aware of the fact that you are edit warring. In addition, I am not required to engage with a user before reporting them here; for example, both you and Jack4576 were involved in multiple discussions simultaneously as you were edit warring (where you had edit warred only 10 days ago), and that is enough to justify a block. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 15:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Another of the diffs you show was against the sock and it is quite evident from my report of them that I was aware that they were a sock and now historically proven that they are a sock. The revert is excepted under WP:3RR. You should reframe from your abusive claims of edit warring. It's clear I only undertook 2 reverts in that 24 hour period. I suggest you drop your abusive claims. AlanStalk 02:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @AlanS: Incorrect. There's no evidence that you were aware they were a sockpuppet; it doesn't matter that it was discovered later that they were a sockpuppet, since you couldn't have been completely sure that they were. (After all, you were reverting edits made by other users, so this is not a good look.) That does not excuse the revert. Even if you made only 2 reverts, it can still be edit warring: WP:3RR "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached." I am warning you to refrain from casting aspersions and referring to my claims as "abusive." Nythar  (💬-🍀) 03:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You made one revert against Ben Roberts-Smith talkpage consensus when you have made zero attempt to engage there. Even 1 revert when performed against established consensus can be be edit warring. You shouldn't be so fast to throw around abusive accusations towards other editors engaging in good faith editing especially when you are not even engaged in any attempt to form consensus and seem to be only interested in badgering users with administrative solutions as a way of winning your side of the argument. AlanStalk 03:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just had a look at the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page and I have not seen a single comment in there from User;Nythar. I note that when they made this report they falsely claimed that they had tried to resolved this dispute on the Ben Roberts-Smith talk page and that in fact has not occured. This report is an abuse of process and I request admin sanctions on User;Nythar. I find their accusations of me and others edit warring and them engaging in drive by tagging when they made no attempt to enter into dispute resolution to be offensive.AlanStalk 15:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've further had a look a look at discussion at the BLP Noticeboard and I have found zero interaction from User;Nythar there, in particular they have not taged User:Jack4576 there. Their claim to have attempted to enter into any sort of dispute resolution at all in any sense of the word is false and misleading. Admin sanctions are required for lodging a report containing false information. AlanStalk 16:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

from article, only because he is already indefinitely blocked from project/project talk namespace and we cannot as of yet set separate expiration dates for individual namespaces and/or pages. Had this not been the case I would probably have set the block for a week or two. If in the future other involved editors are satisfied that Jack has accepted consensus against what he presently advocates, this part of the block can be lifted by any admin.

This was not an easy call to make. Frankly the scope of this is well beyond edit warring and thus this noticeboard. We are very limited here in what more we can do in the way of sanctions, since the page was put on six months' ECP yesterday, with further protection options available but inadvisable (I do not think full-protect would be a good idea as, again, we cannot layer levels of protection because the software does not allow that yet, and other people are editing other parts of the article, and six months would be far too long for full-protection and I do not want to have to reprotect anytime soon). But ...

I was frankly surprised, given its history, that this page was never marked as coming under CTOPS since it certainly qualifies, and the six-month ECP is so rarely applied outside of articles in those topic areas. So I have added a notice to the talk page to that effect and logged the recent ECP.

For the time being, I think the best thing for any other parties to the dispute to do is see how the BLPN thread works out—that is exactly where this dispute needs to be. But I am mindful of the complaints that the pro-"war criminal" side is forum shopping, so if a consensus is reached there and ignored by editors at the page without any change in the underlying facts, then that dispute should be resolved at AE, not here, or perhaps at AN/I, where 1RR may have to be considered.

Good luck and happy editing. I hope this is the last time any noticeboard sees this dispute, but honestly I'm not optimistic. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

User:JamPowWex reported by User:AntientNestor (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1160278385 by Halbared (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1160270583 by AntientNestor (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1160255276 by Adakiko (talk)"
 * 4)  "Corrected Nationality. Citation given for "English" nationality was poor quality. A joke made by the man in a single interview is not citizenship."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* June 2023 */ WP:3RR"

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

Comments: Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Anujkumar1 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */"
 * 2)  "/* top */"
 * 3)  "/* top */added profile picture."
 * 4)  "/* top */added other details also."
 * 5)  "/* top */"
 * 6)  "/* top */"
 * 7)  "/* top */"
 * 8)  "/* top */"
 * 9)  "/* top */added profile picture."
 * 1)  "/* top */added other details also."
 * 2)  "/* top */"
 * 3)  "/* top */"
 * 4)  "/* top */"
 * 5)  "/* top */"
 * 6)  "/* top */added profile picture."
 * 1)  "/* top */"
 * 2)  "/* top */"
 * 3)  "/* top */added profile picture."
 * 1)  "/* top */added profile picture."
 * 1)  "/* top */added profile picture."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user who is not only edit-warring but also making unconstructive edits to article. Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

User:172.116.29.35 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1160463010 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
 * 2)  "I added a valid source."
 * 3)  "Stop disrespecting my Japanese culture you fat greedy American Geraldo. read the Japanese wiki please if you delete this I have so many friends and other people in the Wikipedia in Japan and the U.S. that can help out when it comes your vandalism. Take your time to read this page in my native language: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E5%B4%8E%E3%82%86%E3%81%8B"
 * 4)  "Stop disrespecting my Japanese culture you fat greedy American Geraldo. read the Japanese wiki please if you delete this I have so many friends and other people in the Wikipedia in Japan and the U.S. that can help out when it comes your vandalism. Take your time to read this page in my native language: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E5%B4%8E%E3%82%86%E3%81%8B"
 * 1)  "I added a valid source."
 * 2)  "Stop disrespecting my Japanese culture you fat greedy American Geraldo. read the Japanese wiki please if you delete this I have so many friends and other people in the Wikipedia in Japan and the U.S. that can help out when it comes your vandalism. Take your time to read this page in my native language: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E5%B4%8E%E3%82%86%E3%81%8B"
 * 3)  "Stop disrespecting my Japanese culture you fat greedy American Geraldo. read the Japanese wiki please if you delete this I have so many friends and other people in the Wikipedia in Japan and the U.S. that can help out when it comes your vandalism. Take your time to read this page in my native language: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E5%B4%8E%E3%82%86%E3%81%8B"
 * 1)  "Stop disrespecting my Japanese culture you fat greedy American Geraldo. read the Japanese wiki please if you delete this I have so many friends and other people in the Wikipedia in Japan and the U.S. that can help out when it comes your vandalism. Take your time to read this page in my native language: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E5%B4%8E%E3%82%86%E3%81%8B"
 * 2)  "Stop disrespecting my Japanese culture you fat greedy American Geraldo. read the Japanese wiki please if you delete this I have so many friends and other people in the Wikipedia in Japan and the U.S. that can help out when it comes your vandalism. Take your time to read this page in my native language: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E5%B4%8E%E3%82%86%E3%81%8B"
 * 1)  "Stop disrespecting my Japanese culture you fat greedy American Geraldo. read the Japanese wiki please if you delete this I have so many friends and other people in the Wikipedia in Japan and the U.S. that can help out when it comes your vandalism. Take your time to read this page in my native language: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9C%9F%E5%B4%8E%E3%82%86%E3%81%8B"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Conducting a revert vendetta across a number of articles Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * by.


 * It is possible, but not probable, that there may also be block evasion in play. 17:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)—C.Fred (talk)

User:MrOllie reported by User:GreatBigCircles (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: These four were in a period of 24h 43m:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Earlier: ... there are more. Every one of MrOllie's edits on the page in the last two months has been a revert, except one, when reverting again would have been a violation of 3RR.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Immediately reverted by MrOllie:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The fourth revert was 43 minutes outside the 24-hour window. One of the four reverted two unrelated changes in one revert. MrOllie is blocking all attempts by multiple editors to improve the article in good faith, posting false and inflammatory attacks and comments on the talk page, and refusing to engage in constructive discussion or compromise. There is also a larger conflict involving more editors, which I intend to post on another appropriate noticeboard. This report is just about what appears to be a violation of 3RR by MrOllie. GreatBigCircles (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * for 3 days. Figure it on the talk page please and note that the WP:BURDEN is on the editor adding or restoring content to get consensus for its inclusion. Ponyo bons mots 23:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding and taking action. But I'm confused. There will be more investigation, right? This report is about a particular editor violating the 3RR, not an ongoing edit war. Can you explain the utility of protecting the page? GreatBigCircles (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved admin passing by, I took a look. MrOllie's four reverts to the article over the past day or so take place just outside a 24-hour period, as indeed you admitted above, so it does not violate 3RR. Now if he were doing this regularly every few days, or on multiple articles during this same time period, that might well merit a block for edit warring, as such behavior has in the past. But one time like this, particularly by an editor known for his diligence in patrolling and reporting disruptive editing, is not an issue.
 * The point of the full-protect is to spur discussion on the talk page, which Ponyo judged to be the action likeliest to produce a desirable outcome. I hope it does. It is remedy particularly well-suited to the kind of behavior MrOllie imputes to you here, and you would do well during the next three days to take his advice. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing me with someone else. The diff you linked is another editor's post on MrOllie's talk page warning MrOllie about edit warring behavior.
 * You are partially correct in that I pasted in the wrong link. I have replaced it with the one I meant to include. The rest of my comment still stands. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * From WP:3RR: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. GreatBigCircles (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The last clause is a qualifier not present here, as I have noted above: "Now if he were doing this regularly every few days, or on multiple articles during this same time period, that might well merit a block for edit warring, as such behavior has in the past." If we routinely blocked for every single time someone did a fourth revert just outside of 24 hours, well, what would be the point of calling it the three-revert rule (which, to be fair, is as noted at that page not a license for three free reverts per day, either)? Honestly, I have to ask, wouldn't your energies be better spent trying to get consensus at the talk page for your edits rather than arguing this here? Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am surprised and disappointed that you are blaming me for behavior imputed to me by the subject of this complaint. Do you think I have been trying to use discussion as a "filibuster"? If so, can you explain why you think that, besides the fact that MrOllie said so?
 * I have been trying to get consensus at the talk page for weeks. I have offered compromise after compromise after compromise. I have listened to other editors' issues and changed my contributions to try to meet their standards. Some of my edits have been accepted. But MrOllie has done nothing but revert. I came here hoping someone could help, perhaps by encouraging him to offer anything at all constructive. This whole process is very disappointing and frustrating. Will someone please help? GreatBigCircles (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DR for the processes to follow in order to resolve the dispute, if the editors currently involved in the discussion cannot reach a consensus on their own. This board is for a very narrow purpose of stopping edit-wars, which has already been achieved by 's (correctly, IMO) protecting the page since the material being added/removed was clearly disputed.  Abecedare (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Do you think I have been trying to use discussion as a "filibuster"?". And then just in the very next paragraph:
 * "I have been trying to get consensus at the talk page for weeks. I have offered compromise after compromise after compromise. I have listened to other editors' issues and changed my contributions to try to meet their standards." Maybe, just maybe, you have gotten everything you could out of the discussion and should accept that and move on. The point of seeking consensus is that you may not be as right as you think you are; other editors' input is valuable.
 * "I came here hoping someone could help, perhaps by encouraging him to offer anything at all constructive." Well, as Abecedare ably points out below, that's really not what we do here. If you came here seeking some sort of assistance in dispute resolution (which, honestly, you did), you came to the wrong place, and again there are other places you could have been steered to (as, again, Abecedare notes) if you were honest with yourself and us about what you really wanted. What you have done is the equivalent of going to the police hoping they'll talk some sense into the neighbor you're having a property dispute with and then being utterly surprised when they decide to cordon off the area on both sides a certain distance from the property line. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the header of this report. 'Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing' is the page where the dispute occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Shinakho reported by User:Serralia (Result: 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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: The user is engaged in an edit war with multiple editors on the article Islam in India. Edit warring and deletion of sourced information is also happening on other Wikipedia articles.. The user is also deleting the warnings posted by other editors on their talk page.Serralia (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The discussion was already taking place in the talk page you had no right to revert edits that were already explained in the talk page abd I also explained the edits in your own talk page which you seemed to ignore until now? Yoir also edit warring without even using the talk pager to voice your objection you didnt even state a clear reason why in your edit history. Also I deleted a old one from march the one you gave still remains and I have full rights to do that on my talk page.

Shinakho (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see . JimRenge (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

User:45.50.164.192 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1160405221 by ComparingQuantities (talk) learn basic spelling"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1160405287 by ComparingQuantities (talk) Civilians is fine"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1160256928 by ComparingQuantities (talk) No explanation"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1160256945 by ComparingQuantities (talk) No explanation"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1160256928 by ComparingQuantities (talk) No explanation"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1160256945 by ComparingQuantities (talk) No explanation"

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

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

Comments:

Make sure to check this ip's edit history for Nellie massacre, ip might been edit warring on Nellie massacre Untamed1910 (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This ip just made it's third revert on Nellie massacre Untamed1910 (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

User:JeffreyPrestonBezos59 reported by User:CT55555 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Family of Jeff Bezos [diff preferred, link permitted]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (I tried to resolve this on the users talk page, no replies)

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

Comments: First an IP editor tried to add someone as the wife of Jeff Bezos. That person's name doesn't appear in any sources, they appear to be made up. User:Discospinster reverted those IP edits before this new user appeared and made the same edits. The "citations" added are just "Amazon's Alexa" and "Amazon.com". Of course, this is a WP:BLP article, and I've reverted three times, so I'm here due to lack of other options. As I make this, my first report here, I see the preference for raising this on the talk page of the article, instead I went for the talk page of the user, hope that's OK. (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) '''


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

User:SpaceEconomist192 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Both 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:

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

Comments:

The first edit wasn't a revert, it was a visual edit as tagged by Wikipedia. SpaceEconomist192 ✐
 * , from editing this specific article only ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why such an harsh period of time, if I may ask? SpaceEconomist192  ✐
 * , please make sure that your signature ( ~ ) contains a date. Harsh? This has been going on for far longer than two weeks now, and the block is even limited to the one page it happened on. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So I assume that blocks are made according to how long the edit-warring has been occurring. Thanks for the clarification. Naturally the block is only for the article itself, due to declining userbase that Wikipedia has, blocking two active users website-wide for such a minor infraction wouldn't be very wise indeed. SpaceEconomist192  ✐  01:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:97.94.230.26 reported by User:Wikipedialuva (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Once more removed politically motivated racism which provides nothing but vitriol and bias to the article."
 * 2)  "Removed kafkaesque bureaucratic racism"
 * 3)  "Removed politically motivated and university backed racism."
 * 4)  "Continued to stand against politicized tyranny presenting itself as universal morality."
 * 5)  "Removed politically motivated racism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring and changing IP to remove paragraph user doesn't like Wikipedialuva (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You are engaging in the defense of institutional racism and are an extreme hypocrite. 97.94.230.26 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Endorsed. They don't want to use the talk page because they assume what the consensus will be, and don't want to waste their time.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 04:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You are endorsing institutionally backed racism. 97.94.230.26 (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It would drive me insane to see all of you justify institutional racism while saying you fight against it, and by god you will not have the power to memory hole things much longer. 97.94.230.26 (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * for edit warring. Pretty clear case. 5 reverts. 97.94.230.26, if you continue editing after your block, please familiarize yourself with WP:3RR, and when you find yourself in a dispute with other editors, please use the talk page, in this case Talk:Twink (gay slang). Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Cwacommunications reported by User:Scaledish (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added CWA mission to short description"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1160688749 by Scaledish (talk)"
 * 3)  "Added mission statement to the short description."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Charles Wright Academy."
 * 2)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disclosure requirements for paid editing under the Wikimedia Terms of Use on Charles Wright Academy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is evidently a brand account who will not adhere to NPOV. I'm not sure the proper way to report this given all the circumstances, but I'm doing it here. 05:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The user reported has been indef. blocked. 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:7580:2AB6:654D:D95B (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re:Question -> Specific for this case, since the user both has a username representing an organization/company and has done edits that make it clear what "cwa" means - you could have reported this at WP:UAA. If all edits were obviously promotional you could have reported it at WP:AIV as well. – 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:7580:2AB6:654D:D95B (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:7580:2AB6:654D:D95B said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Terfslayer reported by User:HaeB (Result: Indeffed )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1160825071 by HaeB (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1160812190 by HaeB (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1160765417 by HaeB (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1160750597 by Discospinster (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   01:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

First edits of this user; the username (context) and this reaction to an attempt at explaining the relevant Wikipedia policies to them indicate a WP:NOTHERE issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Luganchanka reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (restoring a non-RS source Fars News Agency)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This is two other users.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been no discussion on talk between the two users. Previously I raised a different but related matter on talk here and here

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

Comments:

This is an edit war between an IP editor and User:Lugachanka. I'm reporting the latter because this is 5 reverts in less than 24 hours and because here as it turns out the IP editor is correct as to the merits of the edits themselves - Lugachanka is using unreliable sources which spread Russian propaganda, such as as Fars News Agency ("news agency" managed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran) and previously Russian propaganda and disinformation sites such as Life.ru, rambler and 5TV. IP also appears to be correct regarding the WP:SYNTH issue. There are also serious POV issues. Describing the Rusich Group of just being "accused" of being a neo-Nazi group, as if there was some controversy about it, when the group itself is unabashedly neo-Nazi, with its leader, Alexey Milchakov (a guy who became "notable" when he filmed himself torturing and decapitating puppies) saying ""I'm not going to go deep and say, I'm a nationalist, a patriot, an imperialist, and so forth. I'll say it outright: I'm a Nazi."" is... POV, to put it mildly.  Volunteer Marek  06:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see where Luganchanka was ever specifically notified about edit warring or 3RR. They have been now. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Gutsyncti reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indeffed as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1160853787 by Farolif (talk): See WP:BADREVERT"
 * 2)  "/* Casulaties */ It's "casualties", not "casulaties". Restored table and source that were removed with no explanation."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1160877043 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Casualties */"
 * 5)  "/* Abd Al-Qādir's resistance renewed */"
 * 1)  "/* Abd Al-Qādir's resistance renewed */"
 * 1)  "/* Abd Al-Qādir's resistance renewed */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

their first edit today is a revert (they restored the version that they edited back January, which has since been reverted by someone else). They have been made aware of this and the need to refrain from edit warring on the talk page, yet they chose to ignore it and deliberately break the 3R rule simply because they don't agree with what the reliable sources say. M.Bitton (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would say that this is only three reverts within a 24-hour time span and no violation. However, the fact that the most recent revert came after filing an ANI complaint against M.Bitton as an intensifying circumstance that calls into question whether Gutsyncti's revert is appropriate. Since the edit in question has been reverted, I'm leaning toward no action here. The ANI thread is WP:ANI. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Matthew_McMullin reported by User:Expoe34 (Result: Blocked one month)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C7:A8AD:3301:DCCB:9158:2BE9:E88B reported by User:Felida97 (Result: Blocked 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The made it better by adding full name and saying when it was made"
 * 2)  "Added the specific time and and how many months ago"
 * 3)  "Added full name to to it"
 * 4)  "Made it clearer to know when it was released and added specific months"
 * 5)  "Correction"
 * 1)  "Correction"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Bard (chatbot) (HG) (3.4.9)"
 * 2)   "Level 2 warning re. Bard (chatbot) (HG) (3.4.9)"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Bard (chatbot)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It may not be full-on vandalism but it's certainly edit-warring. <b style="color:black">Felida</b><sup style="color:black">97 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Ermenrich reported by User:Fries Montana (Result: OP blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/*Physical appearance*/ none of these images illustrate the actual European Huns discussed in the text - they are therefore misleading as they show Asian peoples associated by modern scholars with the Huns (and one contentious mention of Odoacer (not necessarily a Hun!) and the "Arpads are Attila's descendents" theory"
 * 2)  "There was no consensus for including these images (and the racist caricature is a modern 19th century image)"
 * 3)  "Information on other groups who may or may not be connected to the Huns does not belong in this section - use the talk page and gain consensus"
 * 4)  "There is no consensus for these changes - “waiting a whole day” does not change that - get consensus on the talk page"
 * 5)  "Not correct - if you keep this up, insisting on your addition rather than taking consensus into account, you will be reported for edit warring"

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

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

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

Comments:

User Ermenrich, apparently a confirmed and otherwise legit user but with some strong belief regarding, at least, the Huns, is removing stuff from article against consensus. They have performed 4 reverts within 24 hours. Here are the diffs: 1 2, 3, 4, 5 Fries Montana (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I reformatted this report - the last state it was can be found  or in the comments below. 2804:F14:80B3:CB01:9C5E:86B:78D9:3A49 (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a properly filed report. Note that this user only reported me because I had said I was going to report them.
 * I was removing images they had added, restoring this article state.
 * FM has now reached 4rr this morning:, , ,.
 * Talk page discussion occurred here: talk:Huns
 * I placed the warning on their talk page here:
 * I'll also note, two of the "4rr" that FM has posted are actually from the same revert of their additions.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that, after I reported here the update that they removed my warning against edit warring from their talk page, they also removed such update from this page 1. With total liberty, as if I command so I can. To the admins: Please, be careful to the wiki lawyering and other honey words and just zero in on the fact they have performed 4 reverts within 24 hours. And sorry for the quality of my report. But the gist and the evidence is there. Thanks. Fries Montana (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note FM's stunning inability to assume good faith and incivility as well: I didn't completely restore what Ermenrich removed because they later split their removals (whether cunningly or for whatever reason, You are literally arguing against reality Who are you trying to fool? , you have clearly attempted to push your POV in the article [...] Stop repeating meaningless things . On top of that, they insist that they have consensus when they clearly do not.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no incivility but a mental breakdown when a guy (you in this case) reverts four time in a day, denying that 2 against 1 is consensus and trying thereby to get me a headache. Sidenote Ermenrich just removed my notice he is discussed at ANI with the note "this is not going the way you think" 1 is this bossing around? Prophecy? Some hint that they will receive favor from admins? But you just need to look at the diffs I provided and nothing else. Fries Montana (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm allowed to remove a talk page notice, see WP:OWNTALK. And I've seen no evidence of anyone agreeing with you since I raised my objections to those images.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Evidence is on talk page. Long established, very fair and esteemed user with dozens of precius, fundamental works at art and history related topics has agreed with my addition, has helped to edit the capion of the long established pictures you removed, and even agreed that Odoacer's picture would fit better than Attila's. Even so, I did not add Odoacer's picture, waiting for fuller discussion. Just as I waited 24 hours before reverting your action. You on the other hand take just a few minutes to revert to your own way, careless of consensus. You appeal to Andrew Lancaster, who marely opposed Odoacer's picture, which never did I add, much less restore! You manipulate edit comments, claiming stuff like that you removed Odocaer claims, which were never there, or that a picture of Attila from the Chronicon is "racist caricature". You, a few weeks ago, manipulated the article by excluding all East Asian haplogroups, by restricting all arguments in favor of East Asian Hun origin and giving huge weight to minority views (and I will soon prove this). Your conduct on that page is not admissible and is in contrast with your conduct elsewhere. But the matter here is just that you reverted too many times to have it your way, and now you deserve what wiki rules dictate in such case. Fries Montana (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And, lucky is the one who has time to spare! Who can pick sentences from wider arguments like Ermernich is doing to make an argument against me! I don't have time right now, if I had I would provide diffs to prove Ermernirch's long established pov pushing at Huns. But let me plead to the admins here to just focus on evidence, not at Ermenrichs attempts at manipulation or anything else. Fries Montana (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Fries Montana blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/Dirk0001.-- Ponyo bons mots 16:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

User:177.9.116.128 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1161017855 by BilCat (talk) No other page use the yellow flag, the blue one is the correct one"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1161015732 by Untamed1910 (talk) Sop putting the wrong secretary of HHS flag!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1160343306 by Cuprum17 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1160343306 by Cuprum17 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Uniformed services of the United States."

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

Comments:

The ip has made 4 reverts on Uniformed services of the United States Untamed1910 (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Just check which pages use the yellow flag (File:US Secretary of Health and Human Services flag.svg) and the blue flag (File:Flag of the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.svg). 177.9.116.128 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Appears to be an easily verifiable correction of uncontentious fact with the unexplained reversions being disruptive. IP is correct, other relevant articles across multiple projects all use the blue flag. Becerra was sworn in in front of the blue flag. The yellow flag is unsourced, apart from stating that the source is the blue flag. I cannot find any evidence that that the yellow flag is ever used in any capacity. Literally just clicking the relevant link to the parent article would have seemingly clarified this. ~Swarm~  {sting} 16:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Correct" does not give you permission to edit war. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case: true, which is why I didn’t unilaterally decline, 3RR is obviously a brightline with the caveat that DE is not an exception, and it’s procedurally routine to enforce it here. However I firmly believe that we should factor in reasonableness and fairness, and in this case you’re not just blocking someone who was “in the right”, you’re blocking a victim of disruptive editing who was being stonewalled for no reason whatsoever, who did not continue edit warring after the first warning was issued, and who did not continue getting disputed on any grounds whatsoever after he had clarified his edit in an edit summary. ~Swarm~  {sting} 03:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I wish you would have been clearer about that in your comment. Daniel Case (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I have unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Visokor reported by User:Gamowebbed (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1161211473 by Gamowebbed (talk) WATCH THE FIRST EPISODE!"
 * 2)  "It's true! A Skrull assumed Ross' form in the cold open of the first episode and Hill DIED at the end of the episode!"
 * 3)  "I had a feeling this was Smulders' final MCU contribution. and the Agent Ross we saw wasn't him at all."
 * 4)  "/* Premise */"
 * 5)  "/* Guest */"
 * 1)  "/* Guest */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Secret Invasion (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User adding unsourced information, reverted twice. Already warned on talk. Gamowebbed (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The first three edits, as tacitly acknowledged above, are not reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:86.157.182.97 / User:86.157.182.45 reported by User:Czello (Result: Range blocked for a week and article protected for two)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

As 86.157.182.45 
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

As 86.157.182.97
 * 1)  "/* Matches */"
 * 2)  "/* Matches */"
 * 3)  "/* Matches */"
 * 4)
 * 1)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Money in the Bank (2023)."

Comments:

Clearly the same user given near-identical IP addresses and identical edits. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 12:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * and since other IPs seem to be adding unsourced content, I have also semi'ed the article for two weeks, i.e. through the event and a couple of days after. Daniel Case (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:TruthHurts22 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Austin */Added content"
 * 2)  "/* North Texas */Content"
 * 3)  "/* Central Texas */Content"
 * 4)  "/* San Antonio */"
 * 5)  "/* Austin */Added content"
 * 6)  "/* North Texas */Added important and missing information"
 * 7)  "/* Central Texas */Added content"
 * 8)  "/* Austin */Added important and missing content"
 * 1)  "/* Central Texas */Added content"
 * 2)  "/* Austin */Added important and missing content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of regional Burning Man events."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Vipersage reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Both blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1161029839 by 69.122.243.48 (talk) Possible vandalism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been persistently reverting good edits, claiming they are vandalism when they are not. They have made no attempt to discuss their reasoning on the article talk page. BlueboyLINY (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

User BlueboyLINY has reverted several of my good edits which include reputable citations. It appears he has gone through my contributions and targetted my edits without cause or explanation. Worst cases of this have been CBS Broadcast Center, WRNJ, and WLNY-TV. It's clear this user has an ax to grind, but fails to explain what the reason for the disruptive edits are. --Vipersage (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As this is a partial block just from the article, both editors are free to resolve the dispute on the talk page, or find other articles to edit and improve. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Oz346 reported by User:Cossde (Result: Both blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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 added the WP:NPOV tag as there is an ongoing disscussion in the talk page on the NPOV status of the sources used in the article. Oz346 has been activly reverting and removing this tag without discussing in the talk page. Cossde (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Cossde is challenging the status of a particular source, of whether it is a reliable source or not (a source that every other respondent on the talk page and other discussion board have endorsed as reliable - he is the sole editor disputing its status at present). This is NOT the same as a NPOV issue, the article is a simple list, and is written in a neutral POV. I have repeatedly told him that the correct template to use when questioning whether a source is RS or not is the following Template:Unreliable source?. But he has not heeded my comments nor the other editor who has also questioned the erroneous tag. He has also reverted the same page 3 separate times now since putting the incorrect tag over the last few days. Oz346 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * . Apparently, neither user learned anything from the last time they were blocked for edit-warring on a related article. Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Ash20055 reported by User:Ecrusized (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Removing references, 3RR triggered, personal attacks in edit summary. Vandalism only account. Ecrusized (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Calmsurble reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have peacefully given warnings to stop to the user Onorem. Do not alter House of Delegate information."
 * 2)  "The user Onorem is Vandalizing this article Undid revision 1161505910 by Onorem (talk)"
 * 3)  "The username BoyTheKingCanDance Vandalism. This user wants to refute the House of Delegates."
 * 4)  "Deletion not needed vandalism prevention."
 * 5)  "Vandalism protection. Proper sources on factual historical notable events."
 * 6)  "Another user is trying to vandalize this article. This article is factual notable under the House of Representatives."
 * 1)  "Another user is trying to vandalize this article. This article is factual notable under the House of Representatives."
 * 1)  "Another user is trying to vandalize this article. This article is factual notable under the House of Representatives."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Marcus Owen Bell (Calmsurble)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:
 * Blocked as a sock by .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Amoakgusd reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
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:

Return to warring an edit they have been implementing for months, receiving multiple previous warnings and blocks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment from uninvolved editor:
 * This ANEW report is missing some diffs, but I'll provide some – this user has been making the exact same edit to the short description on the Scotland article over and over again for months now:
 * 19:21, 24 February 2023
 * 12:35, 1 March 2023
 * 16:58, 13 March 2023
 * 23:17, 19 March 2023
 * 01:52, 20 March 2023
 * 10:59, 20 March 2023
 * 08:52, 22 March 2023
 * 14:22, 18 May 2023
 * 02:37, 23 June 2023
 * It looks like this user has been blocked two times in the past before for edit warring, according to the block log – neither of which have successfully rectified the behaviour here.
 * To the OP (User:Mutt Lunker): please provide diffs like I did above the next time you create an ANEW report. For a simple how-to on retrieving edit diffs, check out the Simple diff and link guide. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  10:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To add to the above, this is the only talk page edit I've ever seen from the user's contributions. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  13:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ironically, he had just posted a completely unnecessary unblock request alluding to a much longer block not in the record ... what might be going on there? Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Fred Zepelin reported by User:Oort1 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User is (charitably) confused about original research policy and is reverting edits without consensus or participating in talk page. I used a request for third opinion assistance who found that my edit wasn't in violation. I'd also point out that his comments on the talk page are in multiple cases provably false, and point to a history of low quality edit warring. Hi! (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * . Three reverts over a space of 3-4 days in early May, plus one revert on 21 June, do not a violation make. Insofar as Fred Z has edit warred at the article, it happened almost two months ago, and Oort1 edit warred to the same extent. That is not something that will be sanctioned at this board, Oort1. I suggest you give the talkpage another chance (there was a discussion in May). At the same time, User:Fred Zepelin, you absolutely ought to have provided an explanatory edit summary here. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC).

User:Leke23 reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Ekpa is added back to the list, he should not be remove as he is highly influential In the coming election in the US, Biafrans in the US are estimated to be over 4million people. And such individual with such followership should not be deleted. Anyone deleting Ekpa from this list is definitely not neutral, there is no reason to do so."
 * 2)  "Ekpa is added back to the list, he should not be remove as he is highly influential In the coming election in the US, Biafrans in the US are estimated to be over 4million people. And such individual with such followership should not be deleted. Anyone deleting Ekpa from this list is definitely not neutral, there is no reason to do so."
 * 3)  "Ekpa is added back to the list, he should not be remove as he is highly influential In the coming election in the US, Biafrans in the US are estimated to be over 4million people. And such individual with such followership should not be deleted. Anyone deleting Ekpa from this list is definitely not neutral, there is no reason to do so."
 * 4)  "Ekpa is added back to the list, he should not be remove as he is highly influential In the coming election in the US, Biafrans in the US are estimated to be over 4million people. And such individual with such followership should not be deleted. Anyone deleting Ekpa from this list is definitely not neutral, there is no reason to do so."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Initial warning Final warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Schazjmd  (talk)  14:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Kurzon and User:RedWater14 (both currently partially blocked for edit warring on the same topic) reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: RedWater14 blocked sitewide for a month)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Kurzon removes all forms of professional wrestling, stating that they aren't sports
 * 2)  - RedWater14 reverts
 * 3)  - Kurzon removes them again
 * 4)  - RedWater14 reverts again

Warning for RedWater14:

RedWater14 is partially blocked for 2 weeks on June 19:

Warning for Kurzon:

Kurzon is partially blocked for 2 weeks on June 19:

Notifications of this report:

Kurzon:

RedWater14:

Comments: Both users are partially blocked for edit warring at Professional wrestling, much of which was about how to describe professional wrestling (as an athletic competition or not. The ANI discussion was here: . Since the block, Kurzon has been working on the article in his sandbox. Kurzon then removed all mentions of professional wrestling from the Combat sport article, which RedWater14 reverted, which Kurzon reverted, which RedWater14 reverted...all while partially blocked for constantly reverting each other about this very topic. I'm not convinced that the 2-week partial block has gotten the message across to either editor. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * is now blocked from editing articles for a month, during which they can still discuss and make edit requests. I'll wait for someone else to decide whether needs the same measure. In this situation here, I took action with the general requirement of those favoring inclusion to seek a consensus and to provide sources in mind (WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

In my defense, nobody said I could do any work on the side, including wrestling-related articles. And I did not break the 3RR rule this time. Neither did RedWater14, so I don't think it's fair that you blocked him for a month. Kurzon (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule, and this really had to end. Working on other articles during a partial block is perfectly fine, disagreement there is too, but reverting after one's revert has been reverted while partially blocked for edit warring is hard to justify. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

User:ItsKesha reported by User:Lorry Gundersen (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [18 June 2023‎]
 * 2) [20 June 2023‎]
 * 3) [25 June 2023‎]
 * 4) [26 June 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:

Hello! Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Adtigpta01 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "GNM is a commercially successful movie, so whats your problem? Do some research instead of being an arrogant D"
 * 2)  "How tf is adding a single movie is equal to listing all his movies lol, we are talking about his successfull movies and Govinda naam mera was a huge success for hotstar"
 * 3)  "govinda-naam-mera-becomes-highest-watched-film-on-ott-with-9-2-million-views-amid-fifa-world-cup-frenzy, if you have any doubt about Govinda naam mera's success then just google it instead of changing the edit"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated edit-warring by adding unsourced information and resorting to personal attacks Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * While this did not technically violate 3RR, the incivility in the edit summaries and the editor's previous block for edit warring 10 months ago argue in favor of this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

User:ItsKesha reported by User:Lorry Gundersen (Result: Nominator blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Hello! Repeated edit-warring, constantly removing sourced information and offensive edit summaries. Kind regards, Lorry Gundersen (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Historian loverr reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: No violations)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The source is the same as Algiers, they list everything"
 * 2)  "Added a new source, Algiers supported Tripolitania during the first barbary war."
 * 3)  "Algiers participed to This Barbary war"
 * 1)  "The source is the same as Algiers, they list everything"
 * 2)  "Added a new source, Algiers supported Tripolitania during the first barbary war."
 * 3)  "Algiers participed to This Barbary war"
 * 1)  "Added a new source, Algiers supported Tripolitania during the first barbary war."
 * 2)  "Algiers participed to This Barbary war"
 * 1)  "Added a new source, Algiers supported Tripolitania during the first barbary war."
 * 2)  "Algiers participed to This Barbary war"
 * 1)  "Added a new source, Algiers supported Tripolitania during the first barbary war."
 * 2)  "Algiers participed to This Barbary war"
 * 1)  "Algiers participed to This Barbary war"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "comment + ping"
 * 2)   "+ another comment and ping"
 * 3)   "Reply"

Comments:

While they haven't broken 3R per se, they keep adding content to the infobox that is contradicted by what's in the article's body and justifying it by adding sources that don't support what they're adding.

I tried to reason with them (here too), but their replies (see this and this for instance) make me wonder whether this is a CIR issue. M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Here, I'm not going to be comprehensive with you, i literally added a source that say that in 1801 to 1805 America was in war with the Barbary Regence of Tripoli/Tunis and Algiers and i added a source that talk about the leader of the Wars you just needed to scroll a little in the books but ok , "why not". Historian loverr (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. The sources that you added failed verification (adding names such as Raïs Hamidou which are associated with the second Barbary War makes no sense). Besides, even if they didn't, they would still contradict that's on the article's body. You've been made aware of this, but your replies suggest that your mind is already made up. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Although HL's attitude could stand to improve, they have not (yet) violated 3RR, as the nominator freely concedes above. The fourth diff listed above is not a revert; it is the original edit which set this off. Here we care about only reverts, and there have been the maximum of three in the past 24 hours. Which is, need we repeat, by no means the all clear for more of this once the 24 hours from the third diff expires. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Blocked 3 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Edit warring after RfC set up at Talk:United States Space Force instead of discussing. Sundayclose (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You reverted me after you wrote the RfC. I simply. restored the pre-RfC version. Yes, I broke the letter of 3RR, but you have been breaking the spirit of it for weeks, and I haven't reverted you at all until now. Do I need to list every revert you made of this on the article? BilCat (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Article version immediately prior to RfC at 13:20 is here, then with no additional article edits the RfC was set up at 13:28 here, after which BilCat reverted at 13:59 and acknowledged seeing the RfC here. Sundayclose (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to my restoration of the Trump mention here at 12:57pm, which you reverted, then filed the RfC. You have been engaging in a low-grade edit war all along to support your version of the text. I've never reverted you more than once, if at all, until today. So please stop pretending your innocent here. BilCat (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I won't be reverting again. BilCat (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult any admin's intelligence who can easily see this, but the only person who violated 3RR in the article is BilCat. Sundayclose (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * You're being disingenuous, again. You reverted to your preferred version, and then filed the RfC. I left a detailed response to a previous discussion here, which you have yet to respond to. Instead, you revert me twice in less than on hour, and file an RfC in between. BilCat (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

To the admin who adjudicates this: I have a temper, and occasionally it gets the worst of me, especially if I haven't had enough sleep, as with today. It's not an excuse, just an acknowledgement that I do occasionally engage in proscribed behavior such as edit warring, especially if I'm frustrated/angry over a specific situation as this one. I didn't do my best today, and I will try to do better in the future. I can't promise it won't ever happen again, but it isn't my usual behavior. I haven't been blocked for edit warring in a very long time (many years). A block is not necessary now to prevent further disruption to that article, but if a short block or some other measure is deemed necessary, I will accept that as deserved. BilCat (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * per above. Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

User:81blazko92 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Aqua (band)."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Queen (band)."
 * 3)   "/* June 2023 */ + Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Paul Polimero reported by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing (Result:Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts: 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:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

User has been edit warring against multiple editors over the last two or three years, regarding the addition of heights in infoboxes. Since February 2022 their efforts have been solely focused on Tom Holland. Other articles include Hailee Steinfeld and El Rubius. – 2 . O . Boxing  12:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * . ANEW likely wasn’t the best place to bring this up, given how slow their actions were. But, in total, they’re basically an SPA that doesn’t understand RS that shows up every few months. So, the indef if the best tool available to stop this disruption. Courcelles (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

User:OldSkool01 reported by User:Seasider53 (Result: Partially blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: At first I was told the content was irrelevent. Then they said the reference wasn’t an RS. Then I used another reference and that too, I was told, wasn’t an RS. Then I was told to use an official Mattel site for a reference. Which I did exactly that. And was then told the official Mattel site I used wasn’t acceptable either. They keep moving the goal posts. So what am I supposed to do? OldSkool01 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve also asked for a list of He-Man/Masters of the Universe sites that are considered RS. And as far I know, there is no list. So how do we decide which ones are an RS and which ones are not? OldSkool01 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess having a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard can help if the article's talk page (and perhaps an RfC there) is too article-specific. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would I need to have a discussion on the noticeboard when I was already told specifically what site is considered an RS? I was told an official “Mattel site”. And I added that. And was still told no. So how is that my fault? OldSkool01 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a discussion could help because there clearly is a disagreement to be resolved. Not on the edit warring noticeboard, though; the messages here are quickly archived. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In response to "So what am I supposed to do", the answer is "discussing instead of restoring a change others have already objected to", at very least if that happens without any modification. As and  are identical, I'm not buying your excuse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What excuse? I told you exactly what happened. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The way "So what am I supposed to do?" was asked seemed to imply justification for the edit warring, by describing a situation in which you saw no other option than to edit war. There was no situation justifying an edit war, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Yasincansahin reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Lapsus Linguae reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Page protected for three days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1162567794 by JayBeeEll (talk) You've reverted three times now, and (it appears) you're an admin! I've responded to your message on my talk page, which is where you should have started. But I'm going out now. Catch you in a few hours."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1162561190 by JayBeeEll (talk) You're very "assholish", to quote yourself. In answer to your question, have you checked my edit history? Your next revert will be 3RR."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1162535248 by JayBeeEll (talk) How is the "actual edit ridiculous"?! It's a factual edit. Prove me wrong."
 * 4)  "/* Legal threats */ Add note that points out that a *Canadian* publisher uses an *American* spelling for a word in its name."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Beall's List."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

LL was quite clear about their intent to pursue the edit war, despite being warned against doing so. And true to their word, rather than engage because they felt they were personally attack when an edit was called ridiculous, again reverted. There's also civility concerns here (nowhere did JayBeeEll call LL an asshole or anything remotly close to that). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I find it ironic that I'm the one who was reported when the person who reported me broke the 3RR rule before I did. I wouldn't call my statements to which you linked any kind of clear intent to edit war; I was just dealing with someone who refused to actually explain his unprovoked characterisation of my good-faith edit as "ridiculous" and who didn't seem to be aware of the 3RR rule. I did actually quote JBL who called another editor an "asshole", so he seems to have quite a reputation for picking fights.
 * He finally posted to my talk page, as well as reporting me here, so now I have two places where I have to defend myself. If I actually thought my edit would have been controversial I would have posted to the article's talk page (as I've done in other circumstances), but really, that's where JBL should have taken it first rather than making an ad hominem attack on my good-faith edit. But I will take it there now and open yet a third front on which I will have to waste my time.
 * --Craig (t|c) 07:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * by for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:2836:6200:4049:7164:3363:4bfc reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

An IP editor with IPv6 starting with 2600 keeps restoring his edits despite being reverted by multiple editors on List of programs broadcast by The CW, they've been asked not to many times in edit summaries. Since it's a dynamically shifting IP, attempts to contact it seem to be pointless. Regardless I've warned them on their talk page as required.

I previously requested protection for the page and the IP range was blocked from anonymous editing for a week. However, they've returned to repeating the same behaviour after the block expired. I ask that they be blocked from anonymous editing or the page be protected for a long while, so the editor might be forced to discuss their changes and seek a consensus first. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have extended it to the /64, which should blunt the effect of the dynamic IP (assuming, of course, that it is one user with an account with the provider, used at the same location). Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:122.171.23.163 reported by User:EEng (Result: Nominator blocked from article for 24 hours; 122.171.16.0/21 blocked for six months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1162632573 by EEng (talk) + The argument is already made on Talk Page. The verdict is not from your dad, but from Supreme Court of the United States. Harvard follows the law or they jo to jail The USA is built on laws if you dont know that. + President elect has already announced on website and video, that Harvard will follow the court or she will be in contempt of court and will go to jail."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1162628675 by EEng (talk) + It isn't disputed. The verdict is from the Supreme Court of the USA and the loser in this  case is Harvard College."
 * 3)  "/* Cases */"
 * 1)  "/* Cases */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Sorry, I lost count and made 4 reverts myself. IP doesn't seem to understand how we decide what to include and not include in articles. Couldn't figure out how to get Twinkle to leave an editwarring warning. Also, he's IP hopping as User:122.171.19.134 as well. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 08:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * is blocked from the article for 24 hours because, while he usually doesn't edit war (to my knowledge) and did apologize, a fourth revert not justified under 3RRNO cannot be let go., on the other hand, just got off a month block apparently connected to socking, so they are blocked for six months now. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:187.255.222.128 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Persistently adding the same unsourced information both to this page and also List of Warner Bros. Animation productions, Skull Island (TV series) and List of Legendary Television programs. This has been ongoing for some time. Barry Wom (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 reported by User:192.76.8.65 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 24th June, Tvx1's 1st attempt at removing stockton Rush from the article

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  25th June, 2nd attempt at removing Stockton Rush from the list
 * 2)  25th June, 3rd attempt at removing Stockton Rush from the list
 * 3)  29th June, 4th attempt at removing Stockton Rush from the list
 * 4)  30th June, 5th attempt at removing Stockton Rush from the list

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Section on their talk page, where they are warned about 3RR and asked to use the talk page rather than edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  Ongoing talk page discussions about Stokton Rush specifically, and broadening the scope of the article more generally, both of which have a significant number of editors supporting inclusion.

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

Comments:


 * No violation. I don't see 4 reverts in a 24 hours period, and whilst the edit-warring is not optimal, at least two other editors have reverted more than three times in the same time period. I will keep an eye on the article and will protect it if edit-warring continues.  Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Delpl257 reported by User:TheClubSilencio (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: This user insists on removing any mention of Merkerson's birth name, even when such information is properly sourced. TheClubSilencio (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The user, who claims to be the subject of the article, has been editing the article disruptively for years. I've therefore indefinitely blocked her., please do not shout in edit summaries.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wasn't trying to shout. Just trying to emphasize my point. The lack of boldface or italic options tied my hands, but I can see why it might come across as shouting. Regardless, was I really talking to S. Epatha Merkerson? I just have a hard time believing that she'd care so much about her own Wikipedia article. Perhaps it was a rabid fan? TheClubSilencio (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You should almost never use allcaps in edit summaries. Once in a great while, I will capitalize one word for emphasis, e.g., NOT, but, otherwise, it's not good practice. No way of knowing for sure, but my guess is that she is the subject. I don't find it surprising that she "cares" so much about her article. Unfortunately, I've seen this phenomenon repeatedly.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Kuia34 reported by User:Kate the mochii (Result: reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: I have warned them of the three revert already on the main article's talk page. Also, they were reverting my changes on another article I contributed in recently: .Kate the mochii (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like I did not read 3 revert correctly. I missed the part that all the reverts needed to be on the same page... Kate the mochii (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I take full accountability. However when it comes to the edits they made on different articles that I changed I didn't know that they were to ones that made the edits and i wasn't editing with the intetion of starting an edit war with them on any other pages they have been editing. It should also be noted that *I* was the first person to make a dif of attempt to resolve. here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_%28subculture%29&diff=1162656320&oldid=1162612901

My edit note said : "I removed the stuff relating to iatrogenic effects as that is better suited to the D.I.D page. Also the vice article you sourced didn't mention any multiplicity tiktok communities? We can talk about it on the talk page"

Yet they continued to revert the edit Kuia34 (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * + nominating editor...
 * : Reporting someone here typically implies you fully understand the underlying policies (edit warring and the three-revert rule, among others). To reiterate, the three-revert rule isn't an allowance, but even if it were an allowance, you exceeded yours:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Please consider this a warning that any continued edit warring&mdash;whether or not it violates the 3RR&mdash;can result in anyone being blocked, including someone that files a report here. The safest (and most effective) thing you can do is seek dispute resolution options, including simply using the article's talk page to establish consensus instead of repeatedly reinserting contested material.
 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Kicktheball10 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Original vinyl release */"
 * 2)  "/* 40th anniversary edition */"
 * 3)  "/* 40th anniversary edition */"
 * 4)  "/* 40th anniversary edition */"
 * 5)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* 40th anniversary edition */"
 * 2)  "/* 40th anniversary edition */"
 * 3)  "/* Track listing */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruption 3."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Machine Head (album)."
 * 3)   "+ Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Proedit9 reported by User:Deauthorized (Result: Indeffed as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1162931459 by Vsmith (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1162930850 by Vsmith (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1162930207 by Proedit9 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1162929804 by McSly (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated unsourced changes without consensus that said user is constantly restoring. Deauthorized. (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * by as sock Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Aryan330 reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: PBlocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1163008596 by Fowler&fowler (talk) we couldn't rely on only one source which itself banned by government.The information I had provided has taken from books of renowned historians including J.L mehta"
 * 2)  "This time no grammatical mistakes as whole paragraph taken from Sambhaji's Wikipedia page & marked some sources also.i will add more information and more sources on this topic soon.if anybody had problem he can challenge me on talk page I will give every answer with full proof sources."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1162834353 by Capitals00 (talk)WP:EDITWARWP:DISRUPTSIGN as you are continuously doing this thing I am going to compliant against you to Administrator"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1162828683 by Dympies (talk) Provide sources man"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1162821382 by Capitals00 (talk) Wikipedia is not granted for anyone, everybody should provide references to prove anything they edit discuss o talk page and don't make edit war"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Proposal for Infobox result parameter */"

Comments:

Made more than 6 reverts in last 72 hours. This user is already going through a huge report on ANI. Capitals00 (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, enough - partially blocked indefinitely from Mughal–Maratha Wars. Black Kite (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)