Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive471

User:Dangdude11 reported by User:Raladic (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral. This edit has been discussed at length for days and no sources have been shown to justify the characterization. Advocates for the current language are injecting opinons."
 * 2)  "I added a statement characterizing the outlets that referred to the backlash as “left wing”, given their left wing bias.  I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
 * 3)  "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
 * 4)  "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is pushing their WP:POV on a marked contentious topic and despite warnings on the article talk page then went today immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status and multiple times tried to edit and was subsequently reverted, passing 3rr. Raladic (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the article is not in compliance with Neutral point of view. Despite much discussion on the topic, no one can point to any reliable source. I was not warned about this Edit warring until just now. Dangdude11 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The topic is clearly marked as a contentious topic on the article talk page, which comes with extra warnings for users before editing. You should familiarize yourself with them before making edits.
 * It also doesn’t look like your exchanges on the talk page have been particularly constructive as multiple users have refuted your claims and promptly reverted your edit (which you made immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status to even make them - which may be further seen as a way to WP:GAMING the system) as well.
 * The article protection was now raised under the arbcom enforcement for WP:GENSEX to avoid further disruption. Raladic (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel that you reported me because of a viewpoint that you are advancing. You say that I have been “refuted” in the talk page, but no one can point to a source that supports their position, even by their own admission. In any event, I don’t plan on making any more edits to the page as Wikipedia is showing a systemic bias towards a partisan viewpoint as evidenced by your partial comments here. Dangdude11 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I had included another comment quoting rules for interacting with new editors and for some reason it disappeared. Please do not bite the newcomers
 * "Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value."
 * "Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value."
 * "If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well."
 * "Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!"
 * "Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not."
 * I would think that someone who has been around a while would be aware of these rules and should follow them. I indicated that I wasnt aware of the rules and you assumed bad faith.
 * I am also adding in this exception to the warring policy that justifies my actions
 * "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."
 * The material I removed and was reported for removing was obviously biased. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I request an appeal of this decision. My actions were based in part upon not having a full grasp of the rules. I also think my actions are supported by an exception to the three revert rule.
 * I did not realize there was such an ideological bias at Wikipedia either. In the future I will be more careful to avoid offending entrenched viewpoints to the point where they feel the need to arbitrarily report me without discussion. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See above where I was gently guided regarding the characterization of an edit as minor and havent made the same mistake again. That did not happen in this case. I was not made aware of the rules and therefore no sanction is warranted. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:93.159.183.71 reported by User:Wikipedialuva (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1166697746 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism by editor who is spamming my talk page with dishonest templates"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1166697647 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1166696676 by The Herald (talk) yes, do that"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1166630757 by GeogSage (talk) user clearly just dislikes IP edits. no convincing rationale for including this material"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly blanked their usertalk as well. Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This user has no interest in the content of the page. They have made zero edits to the article or its talk page. They obviously haven't made any attempt to resolve the "dispute", because they have no interest in it. They are merely hoping to "bag" a block. I find such behaviour to be inherently disruptive. Editors should edit to improve articles; this editor is not doing that. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The irrelevant comment that I have removed comments from my own talk page is also malicious in intent. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment by uninvolved user: This IP editor sounds a lot like WP:LTA/BKFIP. Sharing the same characteristics of edit warring, arguing in edit summaries, subtly attacking other editors, and removing warnings from their talk pages as previous BKFIPs I have seen and dealt with in the past (e.g. see this archived ANI thread). — AP 499D25  (talk)  07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Total nonsense by an editor I have never encountered before, who also has no interest in the content of the article, and whose intent seems to be purely to disrupt. They also clearly do not understand WP:OWNTALK. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, didn't know about the category Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Active. Impressive that you can actually recognize individuals like that. Reading the messages you linked does sound quite a bit like the guest user being discussed in this thread. They immediately assumed my first revert was because they were an IP user, ignoring that as the one who wrote some of what they deleted, I might have legitimate objections. That hostility was a bit of a surprise. Interesting to see this might be an infamous user I crossed paths with. I hope they can stop being hostile to differing viewpoints, as they do seem to be a bit knowledgeable. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 22:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This vandal continues to violate WP:3RR on Planetary Science. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Calbruce67 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Usage in Islamic rituals */ Eleven functions of the use of 'Allah Akbar'"
 * 2)  "CAIR would be so pleased with Wikipedia advising the world that 'Allah Akbar' is just a cinematic trope."
 * 3)  "Beall's List is discredited.   The Journal of Academic Librarianship has confirmed Beall's bias against OA journals."
 * 4)  "Wikipedia can no longer be trusted says co-founder Larry Sanger."
 * 5)  "Wikipedia is anachronistic says AI."
 * 6)  "/* Usage by extremists and terrorists */ The New Crusades: Islamophobia and the Global War on Muslims"
 * 7)  "Adding cite"
 * 8)  "Sorry - read the discussion."
 * 9)  "No no!  The agreements following the Talk-Discussion are to:   1. Not to include these issues in the Lede and 2.   Not to reference specific instances in the text.   This highly, RS, inclusion does not conflict with those agreements in the Talk-Discussion."
 * 10)  "International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society position"
 * 11)  "MOS:ALLAH"
 * 1)  "International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society position"
 * 2)  "MOS:ALLAH"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "/* Warning: Edit warring on Takbir. */"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring to impose the UNDUE POV */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This "new editor" who keeps edit warring over their POV refuses to join the discussion (despite multiple invites to do so: in the edit summaries, a ping from the TP and a clear message left on their own TP just to make sure that all the bases are covered). Their edit summaries about Wikipedia speaks for themselves. In their last edit, they restored their previous edit which was removed here (by Austronesier, who left a valid explanation on the TP, again ignored by Calbruce67). It's also obvious that Calbruce67 is not "new" given their use of the usual wiki jargon (RS, etc.) that only experienced editors would be familiar with. M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I may be overlooking it, but I see where numbers 1, 3, and 4 above are obvious reverts but I don't see what numbers 2 and 5 are reverts of. can you help me out and point out what those diffs are reverts of? - Aoidh (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the other two are obvious reverts or no, but one thing is certain, they keep targetting the same section with the same UNDUE POV and refuse to discuss the issue (leaving the others with no choice but to either revert them or let their POV stand). M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Examining number 2, it's obviously just another attempt at introducing the views of International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society (which was reverted previously). M.Bitton (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * . I don't see an outright 3RR violation but even outside of the above diffs there is a lot of edit warring for an account with only 18 edits, and not a single use of a talk page of any kind. Aoidh (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Martdj reported by User:MrOllie (Result:Partially blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1166958526 by MrOllie (talk) Stop this. Your behavior is unworthy of a Wikipedia editor. This paragraph has no place in this article."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1166952721 by Newimpartial (talk) This is poorly sourced contentious content. I've explained why in the talk section. Following guidelines, I've removed it. Please, don't undo, but actually discuss."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1166918736 by Reshadp (talk) by Wikipedia policy => Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
 * 4)  (IP edit) "Removed a defaming paragraph with false claims. The given reference is full of errors and lacks any credibility. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Not a political bulletin. I suggest that the author of the removed paragraph refrains from trying to push his political views and using Wikipedia for this."

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

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

Comments:

Profringe edit warring on COVID-19 related article. IP address is obviously the same user, so including that revert as well. MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * They have now self-reverted their edit: diff. — AP 499D25  (talk)  11:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear they self-reverted a 5th edit which is not listed above. I would appreciate that gesture if it weren't accompanied by the spurious retaliatory report below. MrOllie (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

. They made a fifth revert, and did self-revert and went to the talk page afterwards. However, they still violated 3RR after being warned, and after being given a COVID-19 contentious topics notification. On top of this they only began editing the article on July 24 and with the exception of their self-revert, every single edit they have made has been part of this edit-warring. Because they have self-reverted and are using the talk page, the block is a partial block from Martin Kulldorff article itself. - Aoidh (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Martdj (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  20:59, 24 July 2023‎ MrOllie talk contribs‎ 30,910 bytes +744‎ Reverted 1 edit by Martdj (talk): Stop edit warring to delete properly sourced content

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:

Wikipedia's policy states that when contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In accordance with this policy, I removed a paragraph which clearly matched this description and opened a discussion. MrOllie, regretfully, is not up for discussion and hides behind the domain of his source, claiming that his source is credible only on the pretence of the domain that it's hosted on, despite the fact that in the talk section multiple people have already pointed out serious flaws in his source. Also, scientific studies contradict his source. He refuses to discuss further and immediately reinstated the old version with the disputed paragraph, violating Wikipedia's policy on contentious material.

I picked up this matter as recently someone described Martin Kulldorff to me as untrustworthy, basing his opinion solely on this single paragraph in his Wikipedia article. It shows how important correct wording is in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martdj (talk • contribs) 08:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The OP has been edit warring against two editors. The claim that MrOllie refuses to discuss the issue is obviously baseless. The content in question was restored by a third editor (following its removal by 109.37.138.75). Last but not least, this is a personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I failed to notice that the OP has already been reported for edit warring (making this retaliatory report completely useless). M.Bitton (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I sense a WP:BOOMERANG incoming. — Czello (music) 10:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I refute that MrOllie has participated in the discussion. If you look at his statements on the talk page, literally his only contribution has been that "his source is credible" without providing any proof for that statement and while multiple people using credible sources have shown his statement to be false.
 * I'm glad you agree that the paragraph in question is a personal attack on Mr. Kulldorff and was rightfully deleted. Martdj (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand; the personal attack referred to by M.Bitton is yours, in the edit summary. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, though I don't see how they could possibly come to that conclusion given the clear message that I left on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Quanstzurri998 reported by User:Dusti (Result: Indef blocked for sockpuppetry)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Came across while using Huggle. Page protection may be a good method of stopping this as well. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * for sockpuppetry, along with the other accounts editing the page. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Elsharifien reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Elsharifien is edit warring, adding uncited material to multiple articles, and is refusing to engage with multiple warnings from multiple users. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Berocca Addict reported by User:FMSky (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There are three Notable sources saying the same thing - please stop revert waring"
 * 2)  "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used *with attribution.*"
 * 3)  "adding additional sources to reaffirm point at that Aldean is figure head for culture wars - more can be added if required."
 * 4)  "/* 2023–present: "Try That in a Small Town" */ Being a figure head for culture war seems very pertinent."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Berocca Addict and multiple edit summaries on Jason Aldean --FMSky (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

User blatantly ignores WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS despite being told 3 times to not do so and uses it as a source for politics and societally sensitive issues -- FMSky (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council)." - Consequently, I have constantly ensured to include attribution, and added additional notable sources to support the statement. Despite this, FMSky has engaged in excessive revert waring, which is unfortunate. Berocca Addict (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * you are literally reading and citing the wrong section --FMSky (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is about a singer - "Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, *music*, entertainment, etc.)." - This is the relevant section. Further, you are also disregarding two additional sources in your persistent reverting Berocca Addict (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You added "Several publications, including Rolling Stone Magazine and the New Yorker highlighted while Aldean had complained about "cancel culture", the right-wing had adopted the song as an anthem in the current culture wars. " This is a purely political topic --FMSky (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Both editors have violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * because i cited a policy WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS that was blatantly ignored. what else was i supposed to do? --FMSky (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an information page, not a policy or guideline (and plainly says so), and that's not an excuse for edit-warring.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I didnt know that. Why does this page even exist then and why is there a wiki link to it? --FMSky (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it's guidance to good practice. You may be right, but don't use it as an excuse to edit-war. Also, I see no edits to the talkpage, other than your justified removal of IP talkpage trolling. Edit summaries and  comments to a perceived opponent's talkpage are not sufficient discussion. Work it out on the talkpage where others can participate.   Acroterion   (talk)   12:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay thats good to know, I thought that whenever there's a link like "WP:Whatever" it always links to a guideline. No i started a discussion on the user's talk page, not on the article's one--FMSky (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I should probably add that the disputed content is now in the article anyway but without the questionable source --FMSky (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh come on . You've been here for over two years and made over 150,000 contributions until, today, on the edit warring noticeboard, you learned that not all WP:SHORTCUTS lead to policies, and that edit warring is disruptive even if you're right.
 * In response to "What else was I supposed to do?", Wikipedia offers a dispute resolution policy and an essay called WP:DISCFAIL I personally find very helpful. User talk pages are good for discussing user conduct, article talk pages are better for discussing article content. Next time, please create a discussion on the article's talk page and invite the other user to it. This allows others to participate and a consensus to be formed, perhaps with an RfC.
 * This noticeboard is unsuitable for having an article content discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted, but im actually serious, I though that this was a guideline, especially since other users have previously posted it to me. I've know i've made a crapton of edits but i'm still new to a lot of the guidelines --FMSky (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, WP:RSP is as close to a guideline or policy as an information page could be. It is a documentation of consensus, and the some of the discussions linked from the table are huge and document a strong project-wide consensus (WP:RSP for example, with Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220). I think the main point here isn't that RSP isn't a policy. The main point is that even if a policy says the same thing, it's still edit warring to enforce it in this way.
 * And no worries. It took me almost 10 years to notice that "Undo" in a multi-diff undoes the whole thing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Sutyarashi reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Both blocked 24 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:

The content dispute here is regarding whether the Khanate of Kalat remained under the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire. User Sutyarashi does not regard the sources in my dispute well, and even warns me of 3:RR despite them fringing it themselves as you can see in this diff,. They also were not truthful in quoting text from different sources such as in Iranica. You can see on the talk page where I concluded that Sutyarashi was not being truthful about their quotes, such as this Iranica citation they added on the page, claiming that it attained independence after the rebellion, you can see the diff here: However, after looking into the source, it says this:

""Because Aḥmad Shah needed Naṣīr’s support elsewhere, the new treaty was more equal. The khanate no longer paid tribute or maintained a force at Qandahār. Instead, Kalat provided a fighting force only when the Afghans fought outside their kingdom, and then the khan would be provided with money and ammunition. The new treaty was sealed by a pledge of loyalty to Qandahār and the marriage of the khan’s niece to Aḥmad Shah Abdālī’s son. In the settlement with Qandahār the final accommodation was that the shah gave Naṣīr the title of beglarbegī while the khan recognized him as suzerain."

This very clearly stated that they were still in the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire and this user was not being truthful. Noorullah (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, some of the sources added may fail WP:RS on their behalf, such as the one from Taj Mohammad Breseeg, and another one of his sources, under Siddiqi, makes no mention of Kalat still holding independence after the rebellion, it even says that the rebellion was subdued by Ahmad Shah. Other sources like Jonathan Lee and Ashiq elaborate that Kalat was in the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire which you can see on the talk page discussion I linked. Noorullah (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In another diff, this user reverted my edits because it said that Kalat declared independence in 1758. That wasn't what the dispute was about, the dispute was about the rebellion having been settled in an agreement in which Kalat re-entered Afghan suzerainty. I believe this shows initially that the user was not properly taking into consideration the edits I added, you can see the diff here, and claimed the citations I added only supported their argument, despite it very clearly stating that the Khanate of Kalat remained in Durrani suzerainty. (per the quotes I added, and on the talk page references) Noorullah (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This user has also had run ins with edit warring before, such as at in the edit warring subsection.
 * I'm not sure if this is of further concern, but they were found to be a sockpuppet as seen here per this investigation diff:, which if I am not wrong in, should be an indefinite block, and not a 1 week one? You can also see it in their block logs.  Noorullah (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Aoidh since they appear to be handling this. See the above for a possible sockpuppet issue. Noorullah (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * . Both editors have violated 3RR. Sutyarashi with the diffs above, and Noorullah21 by undoing (in part) the vassalage wording added by Sutyarashi and then making 3 reverts back-and-forth with . Per WP:EW The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Aoidh (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also as a note, the SPI from a year-and-a-half ago was resolved at that time the way the blocking administrator felt appropriate; per Sockpuppetry there is no requirement for an indefinite block for the "main" account. The SPI is not relevant. - Aoidh (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have also unblocked both editors as they have agreed to not make any reverts on that article for at least the next 24 hours, and to discuss on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Noorullah was edit warring same time on another article Battle of Jalalabad (1710). While Sutyarashi unblock is ok, Noorullah has repeatedly been edit warring and was once blocked before and his appeal for Rollback rights was also denied for exact same reason. 208.184.20.226 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note to admins: the 208.184.20.226 IP address above was blocked on 7 July 2023 as the result of a previous ANEW thread filed by the IP (boomerang action), specifically due to block evasion of another IP, 73.236.210.215, which is still blocked to this day (expires in October this year).
 * The Battle of Jalalabad (1710) page has been semi-protected for six months due to disruption from multiple IPs, also the talk page of that article shows there is discussion from the editors involved in the editing dispute, including the IPs and Noorullah21, so I do not see a significant problem there.
 * And here's a quick shortcut to the request for rollback permissions by Sutyarashi if anyone wants to have a look at it: permalink. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  01:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Eliasrou reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Selected projects */"
 * 2)  "/* Selected projects */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1167227689 by Eliasrou (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
 * 1)  "/* Selected projects */"
 * 2)  "/* Selected projects */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1167227689 by Eliasrou (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1167227689 by Eliasrou (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1167227689 by Eliasrou (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1167227689 by Eliasrou (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1167227689 by Eliasrou (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1167227689 by Eliasrou (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps adding unsourced content, and edit warring Notrealname1234 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Simplyred90 reported by User:SpaceEconomist192 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: and

User being reported:

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

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


 * Regional power
 * 1)
 * 2)

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

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

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

Comments:

The user has been edit warring the whole day with plenty of different users in the Italy article. Simplyred90 is also very likely block evading, the account became prolifically active after IP Special:Contributions/87.6.189.15 got blocked (see also Special:Contributions/79.23.193.41). Simplyred90 edits the same pages, removes the same content, makes the same arguments, engages in edit war with the same users, has the same edit style and has poor English skills just like the previously mentioned IPs.

The user is also engaging in edit war in the regional power article, the page needs extended confirmed protection, it has been suffering from edit warring over the same content ad nauseam. SpaceEconomist192 ✐  19:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm noy the same person.You are vandalizing Regional power editing that Spain is in G20. Simplyred90 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are trying to block a right person. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Spain isn't a member of G20. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He is vandalazing attacking not guilty person and addding false things. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now i'm trying to report SpacEconomist192 ,the real guilty person. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Varoon2542 reported by User:SashiRolls (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: not sure what is being asked here. 9 July, 18 July, status quo ante: 23 July

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 12:13 23 July
 * 12:49 23 July
 * 12:55 23 July
 * 13:32 23 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: request to undo their 4th revert and to remove personal attacks from talk pages: 23 July, link to their deletion on 23 July of the previous warning (19 July):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19 July, 15 July

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

Comments:

Insofar as there are claims of edit-warring on three different pages this month on this user's talk page, as well as a very clear habit of making personal attacks, it seemed to me best to file this report. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I)
 * User:SashiRolls was previously banned from Wikipedia
 * He was unbanned on the 15th of January 2023 on the condition of staying away from conflict
 * To quote User:ScottishFinnishRadish
 * "Stay away from anything contentious, and stay away from any conflict. I suggest you self-impose 0rr, and unwatchlist and leave any article where you're involved in any conflict. You have vanishingly little rope left, and many that supported the unban also made it clear that this would be the last chance."
 * To quote User:Starship.paint
 * "Welcome back. Now, please, no more comments on your opponents. Stay away from anything remotely controversial. I very much hope I made the right decision to vote to unban"
 * User:Jusdafax, User:Buffs, User:Objective3000 might want to confirm
 * II)
 * I have participated on the talk page of the article "The killing of Nahel Merzouk" at the request of User:SashiRolls
 * Nobody else has. It seems there is Silence and consensus on the [|current version] of the introduction.
 * To have a proper idea of the issue. I highly recommend to read the explanations given for the edits and what has been discussed on the talk page
 * Him calling me the (Indian) person was deemed as irrelevant and inappropriate by User:Starship.paint and was asked not to repeat the ethnic slur by user:Nil Einne
 * III)
 * [] Here is the talk page of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, the other article he is mentioning and where he isn't involved. As you can see, a discussion is already taking place.
 * IV)
 * Contrary to User:SashiRolls, I've never been banned from Wikipedia even if some have very quickly sent me warnings when it's not in my habit to do so.
 * The only time, I was seriously bothered. The editor who did so, Satrar, was ultimately himself/herself banned from Wikipedia ZLEA can confirm
 * Before any decision is taken, I would just like everyone to have a look at the edits made by User:SashiRolls and me and judge who's warring and who is reverting what can be qualified as activism if not vandalism
 * I'm tired Varoon2542 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * User Varoon has some WP:CIR issue, as I can guess from Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. The above quote is from a good source (Indian express newspaper is considered WP:RS). Now this source tells us that caste of Seeosagar Ramgoolam was Koeri as claimed by his native villagers. However other source, put by user there says that he was Kurmi. Now as per policies, we need to put both views. But this user is doing WP: SYNTHESIS on the basis of another source which says that on island of Mauritius Koeri and Kurmi both are denoted by term 'vaish'. So he is completely ommiting the reference of Koeri origin and putting only one view by joining both sources himself. I tried to discuss on talk page of article, but he is probably not aware of WP:3RR and WP:AGF, continuosly edit warring on that article without reply. He even neglected the advice of two admins and continuously reverting it, this user should be banned.-Admantine123 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While SashiRolls's comment on you was unacceptable, it's been removed and AFAIK SashiRolls has never repeated it. In any case, even if they did, the place to deal with that would be at WP:ANI not here. It seems clear that you've broken 3RR so I strongly suggest you self revert. Neither SashiRoll's previous comment on you nor anything else you mentioned is an excuse for a bright line violation. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw that I was pinged in this discussion. You don't need me to confirm that Satrar was blocked (not banned, there is a difference) as a sockpuppet.  I know nothing about this dispute, so I'll stay out of this discussion. -  ZLEA  T \ C 19:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just commenting since I came across this due to the ping, AFAICT, the first diff shows an edit not a revert so it's not a bright line violation. I'm not sure if even the second edit is a revert. Of course the lack of a bright line violation doesn't prevent sanction for edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is obviously inaccurate. Admins are encouraged to ignore this erroneous statement.   All four reverts are the same reverts that Varoon2542 has been repeatedly making since 9 July (in the case of the lede) and 16 July (in the case of the Ivan Rioufol op-ed being mentioned in the body), restoring his preferred text verbatim. It is to be noted that CNews has been warned by the French audiovisual regulatory body for failing to respect its "obligation to honesty and rigor in the presentation and treatment of the news" as a result of this same Rioufol.  (Cf.  CNews) --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're right I am mistaken. I got confused since you linked to a "status quo ante" version as the previous version. But this is not what the editor is reverting to which we would expect in that field but instead is what the editor is reverting against (which is unimportant since it can be seen in the diffs). Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, like I said, I didn't understand what I was being asked there. Basically, the main problem is the use of "French people of Arabo-Islamic background" which Varoon2542 has edit-warred into the lede a shocking number of times now, despite the term not being used in any sources.  --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While Varoon does have enough of a history to make some sanctions a consideration, here before going across the line they backed off and have not edited the article in two days (Of course, should they return and resume the same behavior, there is ample room for reconsideration). Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , please keep a tab on Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, as they probably don't understand the things like WP:SYNTHESIS. They will surely revert to their version again, after coming out of hibernation.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me know on my talk page if and when. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me know on my talk page if and when. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:49.206.131.126 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1167268392 by CX Zoom (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1167169160 by Adakiko (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1167168995 by Adakiko (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1167168561 by Adakiko (talk) The tile "Father of the nation" is sometimes used for Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in India but Part III, Article 18 of the Indian Constitution prohibits conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State. "
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1167168300 by Adakiko (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Aoidh (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Ghazaalch reported by User:ParadaJulio (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

| Largest and most active political opposition group?(WP:RFCBEFORE)

| Review of recent modifications in the lead

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

Comments:

The article is under WP:1RR. Ghazaalch's changes have issues that are being called into question on article talk page (Ghazaalch's changes are not the "longstanding version" because they were made just over a month ago). Requests to resolve disputes on the talk page are almost entirely disregarded. ParadaJulio (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I notice that Ghazaalch was not warned of and invited to promptly correct the perceived error on their talk page prior to this being filed, which is the normal courtesy, so Ghazaalch has not been alerted (also offline since). I assume Ghazaalch was not counting the earlier edit noted here, a restoration of material, as a revert (rightly or wrongly) - it certainly was not a clean revert to the 9 June diff mentioned. Outside of this, the paper trail of what was changed is quite hard to follow. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * and will log under CTOPS Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While this may be a 1RR violation, I find it frustrating that and  who have been routinely applying mass reverts without adequate explanation to this article go unchecked. MarioGom (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I started a new thread on article talk page where you can explain which revert you think has not been given adequate explanation. ParadaJulio (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I can say the quiet part loud now: this report was filed in bad faith by a blocked user, who was violating previous sanctions in order to be able to post this report in the first place. See Sockpuppet investigations/Stefka Bulgaria. MarioGom (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Phil81194 reported by User:Solaire the knight (Result: Both editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I reverted the edit as they basically replaced the definition of "seeing in one of the nightmares" with the tautological "seeing her as a dream in one of the nightmares" and also, in my opinion, overused the word "magical girl" where not it is necessary, removing from the description of the character that at one of the moments they took on a demonic form. The first time, to my shame, I reverted one of the user's several edits without comment because it didn't seem important to me. But since they similarly reverted their edit, I was forced to explain the reasons for my reversal and also opened a topic on the talk page, where I expressed my position. In response, the user went directly to my talk page, where he stated that he believed his edits were correct, so he did not consider them an edit war and returned them to the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHomura_Akemi&diff=1167395993&oldid=1167392567 The same was actually left on the page's talk page. As a source, they refer to the film itself, the reason for which is not clear to me, since the dispute is not about the events of the film, but only about wording. Although given that at the end of the film the character actually becomes a devil who confronts the protagonist who has become a demiurge, I highly doubt the idea that the character's devilish form is supposedly not divine. I warned the user that if I continued, I would be forced to write a request to the administrators, but he ignored this and simply reverted my edit again. In this regard, I stopped any edits in the article and wrote here. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone. This user is changing a good wording in an article just for the sake of changing it, the information about the character is good, correct and it gives the article a better wording. It was not an edit war, this user jumps to the "the edit warring noticeboard" every time without any notable reason, and you can check this out on archives of the user. Thanks. Phil81194 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but do you have any other arguments besides "my edits were good, so it wasn't an edit war" ? You've actually repeated this in three different threads already, but I still haven't seen an answer to my opinion that "I saw it as a dream in one of my nightmares" didn't sound very good, and that the character's devilish form is clearly at least different from character's standard magical form. I also don't like how you try to base your argument on direct accusations against me, but let the admins judge for themselves. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The first episode of the anime series is titled, "As If I Met Her in My Dream..." and that's the correct information about the character that should be written in the article, and for the film I suggest you to understand the story before changing any information, her devil form is not a divinity. Phil81194 (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need to copy the same message in different threads. You force me to make the same answers and thereby duplicate topics. Madoka couldn't see Homura "like a dream", only "in a dream". Even the text you quoted contains just such a form. Accordingly, Homura was not one of the dreams and the phrase "I saw her as a dream in one of my nightmares" sounds tautological. Why not replace it with" I saw her in one of my dreams/nightmares"? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not against a better wording from you, but with only official informations about the character. Phil81194 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are literally quoting the text where Madoka implies that she saw Homura IN A DREAM, not AS A DREAM. In addition, any official sources position the devilish form as separate from the magical girl, besides opposing it to the demiurge Madoka in her god version (even the Madoka wiki share this, but I don't use it as a fan resource). What sources do you refer to other than the general "watch the movie"? Maybe you can quote some lines from the movie that would confirm your words? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * UPD. Since the question is "smoothly" moving towards maximum emphasis on terminology, I want to note that I will not mind if any of the administrators resolve this issue from a linguistic point of view and without considering the request for an edit war, since I think we both broke it. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The devil form of the character is not a magical form, yes, that's true, but she's not a divinity. It was never mentioned in the film in its Japanese version and you can check it out by your self. We are talking about the story of a character and these kind of things often doesn't have official sources. The source is the story and the film it self. Listen, you make too much sound here for nothing, just for simple wording, like I sais before. If you want to add a better wording about the "dream" then just go on, but for the devil form I'm 100% sure about the information, she's not a divinity. This is my last message here, I don't have time to waste.


 * Both editors are warned that if you revert again, you risk being blocked without notice. Also, if you wish to resolve your dispute, do so somewhere else other than here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the solution. In this case, which forum do you recommend moving the discussion to? I'm new to the English section, so I don't know which pages to discuss such questions if the discussion page didn't help much? But anyway, I tried to continue the dialogue on the talk page and offered a compromise, taking into account your outcome. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You should continue on the article Talk page. If that doesn't resolve the conflict - and it's a bit premature to give up on the Talk page as a forum - you'll have to look at other methods of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice! I don't dare to test your patience anymore, you really helped channel this into a more peaceful direction. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User:166.199.172.40 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Band members */Added content that vindictive wiki editors keep sabotaging."
 * 2)  "/* Band members */Fixed the accurate content that was deleted by wiki nerds"
 * 3)  "/* Band members */Added more accurate content"
 * 1)  "/* Band members */Added more accurate content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: by for 2 weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:Asarlaí (Result: Full protection for three days)
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:
 * Talk:Witchcraft
 * Talk:Witchcraft
 * Talk:Witchcraft
 * Talk:Witchcraft

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

Comments:

I don't like having to do this, but Skyerise keeps making sweeping changes against consensus, while discussion is ongoing. They removed the longstanding section about Wicca three times. Having failed to keep it removed, they began simply deleting the statement that malevolent magic is "the most common and widespread meaning" of "witchcraft", along with the five high-quality academic sources supporting it (see here). I undid that, they removed the sentence again, I restored it, then they removed it again. Also, Skyerise and Randy Kryn seem to be planning to tag-team on this article so they can keep pushing their POV without breaking 3RR. – Asarlaí  (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * My bad. I did do some self-reverts that don't seem to have been included. Voluntarily taking 48 hours away from this particular article and its redirects. Hope that is sufficient remorse. Thanks Asarlaí for bringing my overage to my attention. Skyerise (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Another relevant link is when @Skyerise removed a comment asking them to stop. Explanation for that? El Wikipedian (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant? It's well established that users may remove warnings from their talk page. It's my regular practice to do so, and I always comment "read" or "ackknowledged" when I do so. Skyerise (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure...you are allowed to...but its a tad odd to do in the middle of discussion here...it just feels a bit shady...like your trying to hide something. You did not comment read or ackknowledged (and id be surprised if you always commented with a typo). @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you take a closer look at the chronology. I removed that comment an hour before this complaint was opened. Also, I don't believe I made any reverts after that warning either. Skyerise (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Having read the missive, and responded to it calmly in an edit summary (indicating that it had been read, and offering an explanation), the editor was perfectly within their rights to remove the message from their own user talk page. Also see WP:GOODFAITH.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   10:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by involved admin: Look at her block log. Skyerise has been blocked for this behaviour many times before. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'd like to say that since those blocks that I've realized that a collegial atmosphere is way superior to a battleground attitude. I admit that I lost count, and if my reverts hadn't already been reverted, I would do that now. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for leniency from involved editor: Skyerise is a thoughtful, sensible, knowledgeable, resourceful, studious, intelligent, approachable, and pleasant editor who has made a great many useful contributions across so many articles. I think perhaps her errant behaviour might be a measure of her frustration in the face of concerted, and at times adversarial, opposition. She has initiated and engaged in discussions on the article talk page.

Ask yourself which is the more collegial, if errant: For essential context, see:  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   07:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "remove the primary example of systemic bias; this is also not cited correctly - it is not sufficient to provide five citation to prove "most widespread now", it would require say a linguistic survey, etc" (Skyerise).
 * Or "what the hell is this?" (Asarlaí).
 * Or "establish that most reliable academic sources don't consider malevolence part of the definition of witchcraft, but rather a stereotype projected by others" (Skyerise).
 * Or "unexplained removal of detail supported by numerous academic sources" (Asarlaí).
 * Or "NOT removed, rather QUALIFIED" (Skyerise).
 * Or "Skyerise, respect the consensus we've reached through this process." (CorbieVreccan).
 * Talk:Witchcraft
 * Have you reviewed the actual reports? All but two of my blocks are from 2015 or before. There are only two recent ones, and I admit I was heated at the time and argued and deserved to be blocked. But in none of the cases did I actually go back and edit war on the same article immediately after the block expired, so why would I do so when I am voluntarily refraining. Block logs actually tell one very little, and the actual context is hard to extricate. It's all situational. Skyerise (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Esowteric, edit-warring with what reads to you like a "polite" or "collegial" edit summary is still edit-warring. When people disrupt with a smiling face it can actually be more disturbing. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I followed a notice on Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias to find what is apparently a perennial concern (raised with various levels of quality) being dismissed along with attempts to add some semblance of balance to a main space topic. Since I have engaged on the topic it appears @User:Asarlaí and @User:CorbieVreccan have sought to wp:tag team the subject and target me. I feel they have sought to wp:own the page and broadly influence Wikipedia to indicate their particular point of view while accusing others of the same, misusing policy, and doing so with cover of adminship. It seems like I for one am having to make almost every edit twice because I'm essentially guaranteed to be reverted regardless of how basic the edit is, or how well sourced..

Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me at this point to see one of these two make a formal accusation against another editor in this dispute. The fact it's @User:Skyerise, who I felt had largely tried to be relatively measured on the issue, is surprising. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * DD, all of this is irrelevant to Skyerise's 3RR violation. You have been very disruptive on these articles, and people have talked about it and warned you. That's what we do here. Do you understand that this is the edit-warring board? Skyerise violated the edit-warring/3RR policy, and has admitted it. Are you saying you think that it's fine to repeatedly violate policy in your quest to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that you and Asarlai have repeatedly edit warred and more in your attempt wp:own the article and to shut down collaborative processes to make improvements. While User:Skyerise's violations may be problematic, I was under the impression that admins are supposed to be at a higher standard of conduct - not flout policy more egregiously. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: Skyerise is back to hitting undo on Witchcraft. I made a minor tweak to a sentence to make it less unwieldy, and she hit undo, with a bizarre and misleading edit summary: ([Undid revision 1166785522 by CorbieVreccan (talk) let's not interrupt the collaborative process which is how we arrive at a new consensus; improve, don't revert). I don't think she's able to stop. - [[User:CorbieVreccan| CorbieVreccan ]] ☊ ☼ 19:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Note : CorbieVreccan neglects to mention that I reverted a revert that undid all of this morning's collaboration by other editors or that they themselves executed this revert. Also, my voluntary 48 hour withdrawal is over. Skyerise (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I reverted no one. I tweaked a sentence to remove excess verbiage and a word that I don't see in the sourcing. I did not change any meanings. You are the one who hit undo. This is ridiculous. You clearly can't be trusted to voluntarily restrain yourself. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 20:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of reverting again for another 24 hours. That's not an edit war. Just because your revert was a partial revert doesn't make it not a revert. Nor does it mean you are edit-warring. (or does it?) Skyerise (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In the lede, one contentious sentence now has seven citations back-to-back. Skyerise quite rightly tagged that as "excessive citations" and was promptly reverted by CorbieVreccan with the edit summary, "The lede has a lot of cites because they were demanded to prove the most common definition. Flagging as over-cited is a common POV push move, because the next move would be to wait and then say it's not sufficiently sourced. All anyone has to do is wade through talk and they will see why every one of the cites is there. The flag was disruptive and I have removed it."
 * This is not collegial, it is an example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND.
 * I have pointed out that to avoid an "excessive citations" tag, they can be grouped together: ref *cite1 *cite2 ... /ref, with the bullet points each on a new line. Or pruned.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   21:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes his second revert. Any removal is always a revert of the editor who added the tag or material, even if combined with other edits. Skyerise (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Storm in a teacup: Skyerise merely reverted after a whole heap of people changed and reverted and re-changed that part of the lede, and she used the edit summary "let's not interrupt the collaborative process which is how we arrive at a new consensus; improve, don't revert".  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Note about sockpuppet: User:El_Wikipedian.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I collapsed that entire tangent. I’ll let another admin answer this ANEW since I’m doing CU stuff here. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In full for three days. Enough. I have been keeping an eye on this for the last couple of days, and my initial hopes that it would blow over have sadly proven unfounded. It seems the best solution is to keep everyone's hot little fingers off the article for a few days and continue to attempt to work it out on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Protection expires soon. The request at DRN has been extraordinarily, barely, accepted. The degree and scope and multifariousness of contention is great, there are more editors added to the DRN than usual (22), interest from EC editors is non-standardly high. The risk that it could be failed down the line is high. But it could work. Since not everyone is on the same page about the scope of the dispute resolution process, if there are going to be edits of the "DRN is about X and this is about something else type", the DRN process is probably doomed. So please extend for 7-14 days to help things there. Just a thought.—Alalch E. 20:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do. Three days was just to give people space and time to get something like this together. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * you might want to protect Wicca as well; same dispute recently echoed there by one of the editors in DR: Skyerise (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your request for protection at RFPP has been declined; I am for now deferring to that admin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

User:217.91.19.176 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1167575424 by Bilksneath (talk) don't revert for no reason"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1167575262 by Bilksneath (talk) don't revert for no reason"
 * 3)  "don't revert for no reason"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * You can very easily see from the article history that User:Bilksneath wanted an edit war. They reverted four times within the space of just seven minutes, without once explaining why. I was going to report their violation of the 3RR. Funny that the unrelated user chose to make a report against me, and not against the SPA revert warrior. 217.91.19.176 (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Jonh20991 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked indef as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reediting phonemes deleting addendum with inconsistencies that cause phonological ambiguity"
 * 2)  "republican allophones already very well studied and represented in the Brazilian dialect"
 * 3)  "republican allophones already very well studied and represented in the Brazilian dialect"
 * 4)  "republican allophones already very well studied and represented in the Brazilian dialect"
 * 5)  "shows a fact that is presented in Brazilian Portuguese, but its source refers to European Portuguese where the phonemes ɪ ʊ are not found"
 * 6)  "adding referral links"
 * 1)  "republican allophones already very well studied and represented in the Brazilian dialect"
 * 2)  "republican allophones already very well studied and represented in the Brazilian dialect"
 * 3)  "republican allophones already very well studied and represented in the Brazilian dialect"
 * 4)  "shows a fact that is presented in Brazilian Portuguese, but its source refers to European Portuguese where the phonemes ɪ ʊ are not found"
 * 5)  "adding referral links"
 * 1)  "adding referral links"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

User:31.49.196.197 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * by . Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

User:185.104.138.30 reported by User:Yoshi24517 (mobile) (Result: Blocked a month and page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1167686647 by Ltbdl (talk) don't be disruptive. explain what encyclopaedic concept you think it is illustrating. if it is merely an arbitrary collection of images, it is not encyclopaedic"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1167683304 by ToadetteEdit (talk) don't be disruptive. explain what encyclopaedic concept you think it is illustrating. if it is merely an arbitrary collection of images, it is not encyclopaedic"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1167676973 by Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) see WP:IG. If you cannot identify what encyclopaedic purpose you think this set of images is serving, then you have no business adding it. Stop being disruptive."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1167671091 by FromCzech (talk) and that purpose is?"

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:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of gallery by an anonymous user */ Reply"

Comments:

While they may be correct, they shouldn’t edit war to get something done. In addition to personal attacks, as well as deleting my comments on the talk page. I’ve got to go to bed, I’ll hop on my main account tomorrow as currently on phone. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) ( Very Busy ) 07:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If the user thinks I'm correct then why the hell are they reverting? The only possible explanation is that they are reverting just for the sake of reverting. This is something I have seen them doing on other articles as well - repeatedly reverting without any attempt to explain why. They are also forum shopping right now to try to "win" the dispute they decided to create. 185.104.138.30 (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to the above, the IP has engaged in personal attacks and has deleted other people's comments twice They don't appear to be making any effort to contribute to the talk page discussion on this matter. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 08:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

The case is solved; IP blocked by admin Ymblanter and page protected for a short period. <span style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #fc65b8;">ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 09:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved user: This 185.104.138.30 IP and the 217.91.19.176 IP reported above both sound a lot like WP:LTA/BKFIP, who is known to edit-war over the removal of content and argue in edit summaries. They also show an intense dislike for warning templates on their user talk page (such as here), and frequently accuse other editors of being SPAs, vandals, or inexperienced in the topic.
 * I wanted to bring this to attention because it looks like this is an ongoing problem, and they have been quite active lately (I've counted at least a dozen blocked IPs used by them from the last 30 days), so this info might help in knowing what is going on regarding these belligerent edit wars coming from various IPs on various articles that all happen to have a similar pattern. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  04:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

User:65.222.246.26 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1168106696 by Olimar's Tonsils (talk) Still no legitimate reason given. Stop edit-warring."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1168105673 by Olimar's Tonsils (talk) So by your logic, it's "slander" to report every time a movie underperforms or bombs at the box office? Then it sounds like you're in disagreement with all the sources cited."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1168105141 by Olimar's Tonsils (talk) Stop reverting well-sourced information without a legitimate reason."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1168102450 by DivineDragonZ1 (talk) You must provide a legitimate reason, not just personal attacks"
 * 5)  "/* Box-office records */ Is this not called "box office records"? These points are literally about box office (under)performances. It doesn't have to be strictly positive to be here, and other users have agreed already"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1168091235 by Olimar's Tonsils (talk) Personal attacks are not an excuse for reverting well-sourced information"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1168090467 by Olimar's Tonsils (talk)"
 * 8)  "/* Box-office records */ In what way is this "slander"? It's all well-sourced; simply accusing the sources of "slander" is not an argument"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2023 in film."

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

Comments:
 * , you sure you want to report this when you also broke 3RR? Your first edit today was a manual revert of .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm also counting five reverts by .. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 21:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Impossible, I never edited 2023 in film Untamed1910 (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right! I need to get my glasses checked. Sorry about that. I was looking at DivineDragonZ1  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)


 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

User:163.182.198.137 reported by User:Sahas P. (Result: Page protected for two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Mason County being based on Huron County is speculation, not fact. Many of the plays you listed here were in workshop only and were never staged."
 * 2)  "Link to my book."
 * 3)  "removal of personal information"
 * 4)  "I am Curtis Campbell. I don't want this information about my old last name, te Brinke, to be published online. This is personal information. Please do not include it."
 * 5)  "Links to work, more accurate list of produced plays."
 * 6)  "Hi this is Curtis Campbell. I removed personal information from page."
 * 1)  "Hi this is Curtis Campbell. I removed personal information from page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on Curtis Campbell."
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Curtis Campbell."
 * 3)   "Final warning notice."
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Curtis Campbell."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * by for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

User Obsidian Soul, Warring/removing sources (declined, per report)
User:Obsidian Soul has been edit warring and deleting sources on several pages, including Mezcal and Creole people. He is deleting sourced material and introducing unsourced content over and over, sometimes only citing one source while removing five other sources that corroborate against his source. He has also been warned prior (yesterday) by another user that his use of foul language and attacking other editors is not acceptable. CMD007 (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This isn't a 3RR problem. I have opened this in ANI. -- OBSIDIAN  †  SOUL  04:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And maybe this belongs at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Darghil reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Page protected for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "trying to make wikipedia a place for science."
 * 2)  "properly definition"
 * 3)  "refer to discussion"
 * 4)  "2nd attempt to specify how much mass is moved in the definition of a joule with link to wikipedia description of kilogram."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADarghil&diff=1168220904&oldid=1168220670

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

and many following. Comments:

User reverts to preferred version so rapidly it is difficult to discuss on the article talk page because the article keeps changing. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the subject itself, we can define 1 J as 1 N·m or as 1 kg·m²/s², but cannot conflate definitions. Discussion may continue on the article talk page. Complex / Rational  15:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Valid Identification reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Protected 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1168326388 by Dumuzid (talk) Undoing, the source is clearly marked as ABC News Cleveland, Joe Paganikis and it's from the ABC News YouTube account and is backed by a secondary article, which is on ABC News, MSN, Yahoo! News.  The source is not "YouTube.""
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1168325492 by Muboshgu (talk) I did not use YouTube as a source, that is a television news piece published by ABC News Cleveland, which aired on August 7th 2014, on television and is linked form the ABC News YouTube account."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1168259238 by 75.118.88.42 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Removed reference to Jordan Chariton, as it's promotional and the source is his own media outlet Status Coup, not third party sourced"
 * 5)  "/* 2014 */ various corrections, context"
 * 6)  "/* 2014 */ removed th"
 * 1)  "/* 2014 */ removed th"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Flint water crisis."

Comments:

I was unaware of the edit warring policy and I was not notified of this report, this user is breaking the rules. I edited the Flint article -- I am one of the victims of Flint -- to include the guy who exposed Flint, and linked to ABC News, gave the article and listed two local and three national media outlets who carried the same story but this user just keep removing the legitimate info. Note that this user is not removing repeated references to Jordan Chariton, who had nothing to do with Flint and used his own media outlet as a source. I would not be shocked if this user is attempting to gate keep the article and exclude credible facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valid Identification (talk • contribs) 03:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there was absolutely zero attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page, so this report is malformed from the outset. Rather than apply WP:BOOMERANG to block the reporter, I elected to full-protect the article for 1 week while the dispute is resolved on the talk page. I note that one of the objections stated to the added text was a citation to YouTube, but there is no issue with that because there is no copyright violation and the video is from a reliable news source. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Anachronist, FWIW, the person being reported has been indeffed for harrassment.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 04:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The block is for 1 week, not indef. I find the reasons for reverting this user's contributions to be weak and should be discussed on the talk page. I find that the escalation of a good-faith addition into an edit war and a block to be disappointing. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the block was escalated to indef now, but yes, it indeed wasn't when I made that comment.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kimhanh1554 reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: User keeps reverting without understanding of source usage and threatens others of having them banned. Was recently blocked for disruptive editing as well. See. Qiushufang (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't oppose a block on Kimhanh1554, as this edit war was right off the back of a block for disruptive editing, and was accompanied by aggressive talkpage posts and demands for everyone else to be blocked. Even so, Qiushufang should get at least a warning that their own conduct wasn't exactly in line with WP:EW, even if they didn't break 3RR. It does take two to edit war, and Kimhanh1554 did use the talkpage, Qiushufang did not. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 12:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Two more reversions, one logged out as IP. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 12:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Pleasuresofleng reported by User:Quuxplusone (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

and also attempted to engage with  on the talk page, but got only verbal abuse for their troubles. --Quuxplusone (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the editing history alone, I might not have taken this step. But Pleasures' repeated abusive language on his and the article's talk page cannot go unaddressed as it is unbecoming of a Wikipedian. More like a dick. Ideally I'd be able to layer this, with a longer block from the article continuing after this expires, but we cannot yet do this. So for now the standard 24-hour block will have to do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In a first for a block this short, I have already had to revoke their talk access due to continuation of their DARVO behavior. I have also put a CTOPS notice on the talk page to allow for stricter sanctions, if an admin desires, should this behavior recur, since the article comes under IPA. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

User:JoJo Anthrax reported by User:Scottygang (Result: Nominator blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Aug 2
 * 2)  Aug 2
 * 3)  Aug 2
 * 4)  Aug 2
 * 5)  July 31

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:   

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

Comments:

Hi team, User jojoanthrax (along with likely sock account luckylouie) has been policing the living biography page about Robert Lazar since at least 2022, resulting in a very low-quality article. Robert Lazar is famous for claiming that he worked on recovered alien space ships near Area 51. It is admittedly a tough article to write, but jojoanthrax argues in bad faith, cites fringe sources, includes his original research in the article, and bullies editors who disagree with him on the talk page.

jojoanthrax seems particularly keen on not allowing any evidence that would support Lazar's claims. Of particular note is that there was a recent congressional hearing where a former intelligence officer echoed Lazar's claims that the US government possessed UFOs. Whenever editors (including myself) try to include that in the bio page, jojoanthrax will not allow it or anything else that may support Robert Lazar. For me, I think it is important to mention that he took his friends and family to see a UFO being tested, and that they recorded a video of it, which is available on a news station's youtube channel.

If an editor tries to improve the article, jojoanthrax reverts the edits and comments that changes should be discussed on the talk page first. If an editor tries to engage on the talk page, jojoanthrax cites poor arguments and behaves unreasonably. Scottygang (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My attempts to engage User:Scottygang on the Talk page failed. With less than 40 edits, they appear to be largely unfamiliar with editorial policies relating to WP:FRINGE claims. The result is that a great many if not all of their contributions had to be undone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Attacks ontop of FRINGE POV pushing? I don’t see anything coming but time wasting. Courcelles (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Plumeater2 reported by User:Vice_regent (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: See below, in most cases it is obvious the edit is a revert.

Diffs of the user's reverts: In most cases, the user's edit summaries themselves indicate the edit was a revert.
 * 17:52, August 2, 2023: Undid revision 1168427805 by Vice regent (talk)
 * 19:16, August 1, 2023: Undid revision 1168261413 by 119.157.76.207 (talk)
 * 19:02, August 1, 2023: Undid revision 1168259382 by 119.157.76.207 (talk); 19:02, August 1, 2023: Undid revision 1168259597 by 119.157.76.207 (talk)
 * 18:15, August 1, 2023 reversion to previous header
 * 18:11, August 1, 2023 Clearly an Wikipedia:Advocacy, also, broken references, information repeated, failure of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
 * This edit reverted the information I added on 18:07, August 1, 2023.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: polite non-templated warning on their talk page at 18:17, August 1, 2023

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:2023 Haryana riots. In this comment I explained my edit on the talk page before making it, but the user seems to have reverted it without reading the talk.

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

Comments: I believe the user seems to be aggressively pushing a particular POV. See for example Talk:2023_Haryana_riots.VR talk 19:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

User: Policynerd3212 reported by User:TylerBurden (Result: Protection raised to EC)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Explained below

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

Comments:

While there has been no violation of the 3RR as of the time of making the report, the sporadically active user has returned to pick up their slow motion edit warring on Sweden to introduce disputed content that they were most recently pushing for in September 2022. Editor has been involved in edit wars about said content since February 2022, getting blocked for edit warring in May of the same year. The editor shows the same behaviour as previously, undoing edits to restore the content without engaging on the talk page and gaining consensus, the only other thing they did during this recent return was telling me to stop editing the article. The users contribution history shows that other than a handful of edits, their whole activity is based around this edit warring, virtually making them a WP:SPA. --TylerBurden (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)


 * It is completely clear what is happening. What I mean that, yes the 3RR rule wasn't broken and the edit warring was in sequence (You removed several statements in June and got reverted 11/2 months later, and happening one revert day by day). I can find out that the reported user isn't extended confirmed and has a conflict of interest to Sweden and Denmark related articles, so suggest page protection. ToadetteEdit  (chat)/(logs) 11:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the conflict of interest (merely studying something doesn't give you a conflict in editing articles about it). Maybe, though, we could just block this editor from the article? Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Now a third revert to restore the content seen here. I agree with a block from the article itself, that would force the editor to at least attempt to gain consensus rather than continue attempting to brute force the content in through edit warring, and still allow whatever other infrequent small edits they make to other articles. TylerBurden (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Since that was almost a day ago, and he hasn't edited since then, I'll see what he does. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case TylerBurden has removed a significant and relevant section to the Sweden page regarding immigration - without gaining consensus. I am not a frequent user on the English version of wikipedia but I have contributed plenty on Danish wikipedia sites.
 * TylerBurden is the most active person on the Sweden page and frequently removes contributions which doesn't fit with his political narrative. What is the argument for suddenly deleting a major part of the site with no explanation or discussion? Policynerd3212 (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, an editor could find the material unsourced, or unreliably sourced, or making claims the sourcing does not support. Or it could be irrelevant to the article. While it's not necessary in those situations to remove it, an editor would still be within their rights to do it. I believe the warning that appears above the edit window says something to this effect.
 * So what's your argument for discussing this here and not on the talk page? Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: In fact, looking at what you keep restoring, I note that there are unsourced paragraphs in this apparently "VERY IMPORTANT" information. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Sweden has received hundred of thousands of immigrants in a very short time span. According to Statistics Sweden, over 2 million of Sweden’s inhabitants which is 20% of the population, are born abroad. This is significant and has changed the political landscape, culture and demographics in a major way. I would certainly argue that is very important to the country. Do you disagree - and if yes, why?
 * I have per your comment added additional sourcing to the section.
 * "what's your argument for discussing this here and not on the talk page?" - TylerBurden has moved the discussion here. But we could have a discussion on the discussion page. I have no objections to this and I do not know, which is the most appropriate. But regarding the discussion, I would argue that the burden is on TylerBurden to explain why he has deleted a major and important section without explanation or discussion - as he is the one who has initiated a major change. Policynerd3212 (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * He moved it here? He started the discussion of your edit warring here. You do not have to wait for him to move it back to the talk page; you can do it all by yourself. You do have this wonderful thing called "agency". Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case I can sense you are quite upset, but I am relatively new to wikipedia, so I do not know which page is appropriate for discussions such as this. But if you believe it to be more appropriate I will move the the discussion to the talk page. Policynerd3212 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be an excellent idea. And I'm not upset with you, more the apparent "Look what he made me do!" defense. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Continuing to violate WP:ONUS to restore synthesized content that is already covered on a main article that is linked, while also repeatedly deforming my user page by copying my messages. Please act on this, as you can see the editor is personally motivated against me for getting in the way of them including their very important information full of policy violations and lack of consensus. TylerBurden (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Existing indefinite semi-protection raised to extended-confirmed. After considering this for a long time and reading the looong discussion on the talk page about this that started almost six months ago, I have concluded that this is the best step to take. It is evident that Policynerd is editing against consensus here, and is unwilling to accept that they might be wrong. And it doesn't help to start which basically talk page discussions which basically boil down to "I'm right, I worked hard on this—do not go against me". With this, Policynerd will not be able to edit the article, but it will keep a clean block record and they may discuss on the talk page (assuming they are willing to see other perspectives) as well as any other article in the encyclopedia. Of course, should Policynerd, when they attain EC status themselves, resume this behavior, this sanction will have to be revisited. Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Daniel Case Thank you for the protection which will at least limit the edit warring (for now). I'm sorry to ping you again so soon with the issue, but given that Policynerd3212 has already taken their continued problematic attitude to the talk page immediately lashing out at me and the editor who agreed with me in response to Policynerd's talk page thread, I don't think this article or Wikipedia in general is for them. They don't seem interested in improving their knowledge and learning, but just wants to add their content at all costs. The point of protecting the page doesn't seem to have connected given that their "all sections should be deleted" and continued personal attacks and accusations towards me doesn't indicate a willingness of seeing others perspectives, or indeed learn how content is built. That in combination with the harassment of my user page makes me think that frankly this person doesn't have the temparament and willingess to learn required for editing, at least not this topic. TylerBurden (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does seem like they have increasing problems assuming good faith. But Tweedle has now suggested what seems to be a workable compromise. Let's see what happens with it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:2826:500:7D54:2B54:B658:48DC reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: Page protected for a year)
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 anonymous user with IPv6 adress usually starting with 2600:4040, who I've complained and gotten their range blocked three times in the past , is back at it again. Like I stated in my previous complain, the user keeps changing the format on TV show articles like List of programs broadcast by The CW and List of Amazon Freevee original programming, and edit-warring with multiple users. This has been going on for months, even before I first noticed them. I've requested them to discuss and warned them too, but they don't bother. They've been going at it for months and despite multiple blocks just return to edit-warring.

Brief one week or two week blocks aren't working on the user. I requested the admins to disable anonymous editing for a while like six months but they didn't listen. Small blocks clearly aren't going to work. The user will likely just return to edit warring without discussion if blocked only briefly again. Please, disable anonymous editing from their range for a few months, or at the least semi-protect the articles they keep edit-warring on for a few months. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * For a year. This is, as you seem to have realized, really the better remedy than whack-a-mole rangeblocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

User:PadFoot2008 reported by User:DrKay (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) 14:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) 10:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) 11:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC), self-reverted at 12:27
 * 5) Partial revert at 15:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC), reverting.

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 been under the impression that the 3 revert rule applied to the revertion of same material. I am a relatively new editor not aware with all of Wikipedia's policies. I just checked the page related to edit warring and realised the edits could be also related to different material and within a 24 hour period. I apologise for this unknowing and also apologise for unknowingly edit warring. I am now aware of it and will strive to not do it in future. I apologize to the administrators for the disturbance caused by me. I've also reverted my own most recent revertion as per WP:3RR. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think their explanation is sincere and they have self-reverted so I don't think any action should be taken at this time. Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The fourth revert was self-reverted. The fifth one, not. Although the fifth revert is more than 24 hours since the first and second reverts and therefore within the bright-line rule, it is only outside that window by 1 hour and 6 minutes, which would generally be considered 'gaming the system'. DrKay (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have them about this and about future edit warring, and I will keep an eye on this for a while.  Aoidh (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

User:165.16.20.39 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */I posted all of my explanations on your talk page but then it didn't let me do anything in any talk page I have gathered the quotes from each book"
 * 2)  "/* top */I have explanation. but the talk page ain't working"
 * 3)  "/* top */nope it doesn't I swear and I gathered a long explanation do you have discord I can send it there."
 * 4)  "/* top */I couldn't put my things in the talk page"

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

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

Comments:

The IP keeps edit warring while claiming that they can't edit the talk page (which they claimed before and after editing it while refusing to quote from the sources that they keep misinterpreting). M.Bitton (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC) after I read the report on AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to note that the IP is being prevented from editing the Talk page by a test edit filter apparently created to prevent the rash of political vandalism (Nazi stuff I think?) committed by IPs lately. (and others), I believe, know more about this. As for the edit war itself, the IP and M.Bitton have been going at it since August 1.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If they are being prevented from editing it, then how they come they managed to do it? Is that something that happens at different times of the day? M.Bitton (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ping . M.Bitton (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors who understand better about how edit filters work can answer that.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will also note that I did ask them yesterday (see Diff) to contact an admin who will look into their claim (they ignored my request). M.Bitton (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to an influx of vandalism, yesterday I was forced to briefly filter out all edits by IPv4 editors. This lasted all of 2 minutes, but the IP had the bad luck to make 6 talkpage edit attempts in those 2 minutes. That said, subsequent complaints about not being able to edit talkpages come some time later. So, they are incorrect, but I would assume confusion over malice. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 16:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. So much easier than lazy me trying to figure it out.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for the explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

User:DisconsolatePutz reported by User:Czello (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At Mark Wallace


 * 1)  "Undid revision 1168681000 by Czello (talk) Removed self-promotional content masquerading as genuine research"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1168669595 by Czello (talk) Using the term "regime" instead of "government" constitutes infringement of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1168533219 by HistoryofIran (talk) Lacks WP:CONSENSUS"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1168452375 by Mikecaymantrades (talk) Removed self-aggrandizing content in violation of Wikipedia editorial rules"

At United Against Nuclear Iran


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

At Voice of America Persian News Network


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

At Masih Alinejad


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

Comments:

User has been edit warring against multiple editors ( and ) across multiple articles. Despite several warnings they have yet to post on the talk page of these articles. Not all are 3RR violations, but user persistently reverts with POV and WP:RGW edits without obtaining talk page consensus. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you cease being obtuse and describing my legitimate attempts at reversing semantic obscurantism as an instance of "edit-warring"? Check the footnote describing the changes I made: the page in question (Mark Wallace) has already been flagged for hosting self-promotional, self-aggrandizing content, owing to which it is incumbent that the concerns be addressed and remedied.
 * Secondly, the usage of the term "regime" instead of "government" to describe the governments of the nations described therein constitutes a blatant contravention of the neutrality policy. All the changes I have been have been substantiated with cogent sources, whereas the previous edits were not merely unreferenced, but were brazenly espousing a partisan stance.
 * With reference to "United Against Nuclear Iran", be advised that the description adducing to it being "bipartisan" was wholly unsubstantiated and lacked any references to document to the classification. Referring to it as "neoconservative", something that has been attested to by an expert whose credentials have been documented, is only natural given its presence on the page already. Furthermore, I provided an appropriate reference too, something which "bipartisan" acutely lacks.
 * The content previously hosted on the pages I edited were either unsubstantiated, unreferenced, self-promotional, or were blatantly pushing a distorted perspective. If you suggest reverting to the previous edition, cite the references. As an editor, I am well within my rights to suggest changes backed by credible references, which I did. Moreover, if the content infringes on Wikipedia's policy, then it shall be rectified and addressed for due compliance.
 * Apropos the changes made on the page of Voice of America Persian News Network, be advised that I merely modified its description in a fashion similar to the one accorded to Russia Today, which is also a state-controlled broadcaster. Classifying it as "pushing a perspective" is wholly disingenuous considering this is the same protocol dispensed to the pages of other state-controlled broadcasting entities. DisconsolatePutz (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You've received (by my count) 3 separate warnings around edit warring (discounting ones you received in edit summaries). You've ignored them. You've been asked to obtain consensus by at least 3 different editors multiple times. You've ignored them. You don't get to brute-force your preferred version. Why haven't you taken your edits to their respective talk pages once they were disputed? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also calling others "obtuse" is a personal attack. Please don't do it. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting them. They also randomly accused me and Mikecaymantrades of collaborating ("I only come across two editors collaborating with each in a concerted attempt to subvert changes: HistoryofIran and Mikecaymantrades."). --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

User:BoxxyBoy reported by User:Amaury (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1168828672 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1168828432 by TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) "Stop removing this, it's your talk page" oh it is? Well then according to WP guidelines, I CAN remove it. A: learn to type. B: don't vandalize pages. C: Don't get salty and act like a creep. DO NOT CONTINUE THIS. You did not provide anything of any worth to that page."
 * 3)  "/* Reporting BoxxyBoy */ You stalked my page to find ammunition against me because you were salty about me not letting you vandalize a page I was working on. You are pathetic. I better not receive any more notifications about this."
 * 4)  "/* Reporting BoxxyBoy */ you are literally a stalker"
 * 5)  "/* Reporting BoxxyBoy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User brought a concern to 's talk page, and BoxxyBoy is now refactoring the OP's comments by completely removing the discussion and keeps removing it, even though 1) BoxxyBoy isn't the OP and 2) it's not BoxxyBoy's talk page. Amaury • 08:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * With edit summaries like this, I question whether this user is able to edit collaboratively with others. Amaury • 08:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Both of you are testing my patience. How can you defend someone who KNOWINGLY vandalizes WP and then denies it??? BoxxyBoy (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Bro literally stalked my page because they were salty about being a vandal. Actually shut up and drop the topic . BoxxyBoy (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that you're deleting other users' comments, which you're not justified in doing, but your belligerent attitude is almost certainly going to earn you a block. I was on the verge of starting an WP:ANI thread, but this report alone is probably enough to do it. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I not justified in being angry? This is absolutely outrageous! This is one of my only hobbies. This is one of the most idiotic things I have seen; when I actually try to STOP a vandal from... you know... VANDALIZING... I get reported?? Look at the edits I have made. I provide good, reliable sources. I ONLY IMPROVE pages, unlike User TheAmazingPeanuts, who has been allowed to make destructive edits. BoxxyBoy (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not justified in deleting other people's comments on talk pages that aren't your own. It's a simple as that. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No. It is as simple as not reporting me for attempting to stop a disruptive editor. BoxxyBoy (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SHOUTING — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed it for you boo :P - fyi, I will no longer be responding to this. I have plans assuming I am blocked from editing, so it's not even worth it. I hope you have a heart, or at least some common sense. BoxxyBoy (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is being disruptive by reverting other editors. I try to be reasonable with you by telling you to follow the guidelines, but when you remove my comment by telling me to "stay off my page", it's clear that you're not here to work with other editors and are rude and hostile. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've decided to make one final comment. Your edits were vandalism. Why else would I revert them? I am here to provide information. If someone is going to try and ruin a page and I happen to catch it, I'm not going to let it slide. It was "my page" while I was editing it. Anyone is free to provide good and constructive edits. But it seems like you don't understand what that is. You also decided it was okay to stalk my talk page's history, which is incredibly creepy. You should be ashamed. I understand you feel as though you are correct, and while my anger may sway others' opinions to your side, not only are you incredibly incorrect and a vandal, but my anger is also justified. Now I AM SERIOUS. If I receive another notification, I will make sure there are real life consequences. BoxxyBoy (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The last sentence alone should now be grounds for an immediate block, as per WP:THREAT. Amaury • 09:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol okay. I'm implying a permanent ban from WP, and since it seems y'all's lives center around Wikipedia, they would fall apart. Maybe WP:GetABrain and WP:LeaveMeAlone. BoxxyBoy (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agreed with Amaury; clearly, the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE) and should be blocked permanently. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "clearly, the editor is not here to build an encyclopedia" How am I not? I've literally been editing pages even after this report. All I want is to add info and not have to deal with this nonesense. SMH.
 * If you decide to waste the time and try to block me from editing, just know I'll be back with a different username and IP, because no matter how hard you try, I'm not going to let you stop me from sharing information. Maybe instead of wasting your time, try helping improve the site like yours truly? BoxxyBoy (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about this? It's not vandalism. Vandalism is a deliberate, malicious attempt to disrupt the project. Any good-faith edits aren't vandalism. WP:AGF. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Buddy was literally making it harder for me to edit on purpose. By ruining the format, it was harder to navigate the site. Yes. That was deliberate and malicious. It was not, in fact, good faith. BoxxyBoy (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

A sixth revert. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 09:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:NmWTfs85lXusaybq reported by User:Yaujj13 (Result: No violation)
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:

Hello, I like to report an edit warring with another user NmWTfs85lXusaybq.

He claimed that my edits are all pro China POV and was 'justly' revert to the correct place. I disagree with him and believe he is lying.

In the Jambi Sultanate, I never added any Chinese POV as not only it neutrally state the history, the sources itself comes from Western origin so the argument does not hold. Plus the edits I made only state the relationship between Jambi and China along with the Dutch as he previously argue that indirect connection are not allowed (the wiki are filled with indirect links). I also wrote what the source stated that I just referenced.

I state my arguments in the talk page and he falsely accuse me of being a Chinese nationalist which none of the content I added are what he claimed. If it was Chinese nationalist, I would be write nonsense like "Jambi is successful because of China". He also unnecessarily think my Fandom/Wikia background compromise my edits in the Wikipedia as I had a same standard of editing for regardless any edit. I know what I write. Yaujj13 (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I was surprised to see this come up as I had some contact with these two editors back in April, after they had some interactions that could probably be described as outright edit warring. At the time my attention was drawn to @Yaujj13 because they included blog cites to support some edits. Then the fight between the two broke out and I tried my best to mediate, among other things, calling for @Yaujj13 to slow down as a new editor, and for @NmWTfs85lXusaybq to stop the name-calling.
 * I think that at the time @Yaujj13was getting out of line a bit with the volume of edits and perhaps a bit of POV pushing. However, @NmWTfs85lXusaybq on my reading was the aggressor at that point because they jumped straight to accusations and Chinese POV name calling.
 * Neither of these editors seems to talk before reverting, just sniping in edit summaries. If anything they seem to be more candidates for IBAN than a block for edit warning but I'm not advocating for it. Just offering a perspective FWIW. Oblivy (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: there's also an ANI report (which maybe triggered this counter-attack) Oblivy (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Wappy2008 reported by User:The Banner (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I have not tried to discuss this on the talk page of the article, as the editor is unresponsive there. Instead, i reached out to his own talk page (here) only to be met with accusation of not knowing the rules. The editor is involved in a slow edit war and seems to claim to be the only one with proper knowledge (ownership) of the subject.

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

Comments:

Slow editwar with two editors and ownership issues. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * User @The Banner is using irrelevant accus. Posting random warning messages even if no rules has been over crossed. Refusing to use talk page or using Wiki project page to discuss his concern. He is breaking revert rules on different pages as per his contribution history. Please refer to my talk page for further evidence. User was on main discussion or noticeboard by several users back in February 2023 for the same thing and now he is back with same way of editing and by not following right procedures. I have been politely asking to discuss all his concerns (evidence on my talk page). Thank you Wappy2008 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reference: Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)
On Democratic Socialists of America, new user is adding a criticism section sourced to a Medium blog post and to Twitter, saying, in the face of WP:MEDIUM, that nothing on Wikipedia prevents the use of random blog posts on Medium being used to source accusations. I disagree, but my reverts are being reverted and I'm not prepared to edit war. Further eyes would be useful. — <span style="letter-spacing:-1pt;font-family:'Rockwell', serif;">Trey Maturin™ 15:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! User User:Trey Maturin continues to avoid the simple question of whether they read the citation in question or not. Wikipedia does not smile upon such shoddy editing. Trey: did you read the citation or not? Sniff snaff (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Schizo15523 reported by User:Vinegarymass911 (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1168873900 by Vinegarymass911 (talk) broaded"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1168866102 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1168863456 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced text"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1168837302 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced text with current info"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1168691771 by Mean as custard (talk) The article has been significantly enriched with comprehensive details about various clubs. This enhancement brings a deeper understanding of the club activities, objectives, and member benefits. Readers can now delve into a wealth of information, making their experience more informative and enjoyable."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A temporary ban would help the user slow down. The user has chosen not to engage and has repeatedly inserted promotional content. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * by me after reading the AIV report. Spam/promo-only account. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:67.149.160.101 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1168944852 by Untamed1910 (talk) for the umpttenth time the removal is not the claimed 'unexplained' read previous edit siummaries and stop furthering what you say you are trying to stop."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1168943249 by FenrisAureus (talk) no reason given for restoration"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1168942543 by FenrisAureus (talk) the section is howling at the moon, feet stomping, they had better than someone else and is completely absurd to list in an article."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1168940971 by FenrisAureus (talk) the content is about technology, which is used every day, what next shoe technology of some countries, or diet regimens. Also to the reverter please read the edit summaries."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1168939920 by FenrisAureus (talk) not vandalism, the section is a storm in a tea cup and not something which is anything belonging of being on here.What next we have a whole section on wealthy nations shoe technology of rowing blades, come one this is how sport works"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics."
 * 2)   "/* August 2023 */ Reply"

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

Comments: A first edit cannot be a revert and the other two editors including the one who has made this report are complaining of behaviour which they are engaged in. This is ironic as a report and the person making the report is only using what they think the policy says and not what it actually says, they have also clearly demonstrated they are simply counting up to three reverts before they stop doing what they are doing, which is clearly prohibited. Just look at the whole page in question and my talk page. This was also pointed out on this page when another user clearly pointed out multiple people involved inedit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's too many reverts by too many editors. A discussion has been started on the talk page, I suggest all editors involved use it and come to a consensus regarding the content. Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for forcing some sense on to this issue, and maybe a slap with a wet fish to the person who made this report. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They were right to bring it here. - Aoidh (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case then irony is truly dead when they are bringing a report about behaviour they are doing themself. I also note they did not report the third person involved...is this kind of single person targeting and complaining about behaviour one is doing oneself actually how things work on Wikpedia? 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When a report is made here, all involved parties are scrutinized, including the filer. I'm not sure what the issue is here. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I also note the discussion on the article talk page was started 2 minutes before this report was filed with one line saying "You should not be removing sourced content regardless." nothing on the content and clealrly no intention to engage on the subject, just clearly to tick some box to make this report requirements met.
 * I would just like to point out that I simply saw junk content on a page and got rid of it and the top of the page encouraged me to do so. Instead i had two users who looking in to it further appear to be using automated software or an automated process. Something called "Twinkle" and something called "RedWarn". These things were linked in the history and their edit summaries. These appear to show what an automated system is believing to be 'vandalism' and the replies from the users clearly show no reading of the reasons i gave. They both kept saying 'unexplained' when I left details in the edit summary, and kept on saying it was 'unexplained' when I laid out reasons to these people. I even invited one person to give reasons, which they have not done. This seems to me to be people using an automated system not reading things being done, biting another persons head off, and then stonewalling with the same thing over and over. This surely cannot be how this place is meant to operate, can it? 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Alaska4Me2 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Architectural achievements */"
 * 2)  "/* New Testament references */ most and majority are not encyclopedic without references to completely support such editorial commentary"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1169020138 by Tgeorgescu (talk)returning neutrality and encyclopedia language to this small area of the article"
 * 4)  "/* New Testament references */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1169018760 by Tgeorgescu (talk) returning neutrality and encyclopedia language to this small area of the article."
 * 6)  "removed from beginning of article as it should be in the main body; changing to encyclopedic wording, removing guessing and commentary"
 * 1)  "/* New Testament references */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1169018760 by Tgeorgescu (talk) returning neutrality and encyclopedia language to this small area of the article."
 * 3)  "removed from beginning of article as it should be in the main body; changing to encyclopedic wording, removing guessing and commentary"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1169018760 by Tgeorgescu (talk) returning neutrality and encyclopedia language to this small area of the article."
 * 2)  "removed from beginning of article as it should be in the main body; changing to encyclopedic wording, removing guessing and commentary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Herod the Great."
 * 2)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Herod the Great."
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Herod the Great."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit war */ WP:RS/AC is a very important part of our WP:RULES"
 * 2)   "/* Edit war */ How is that for neutrality?"
 * 3)   "/* Edit war */ sign"

Comments:

I just want to say that if WP:RS/AC has been abolished, I certainly did not get the memo. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Reporting party made no serious attempt to discuss either at my talk page or the article talk page. Article talk page comments were made about edit warring with snarky commentary in the description of their edits and my edits at the talk page.  His snarky commentary has also filtered into their comments here, too.  The talk page edits were, I believe, made after this report was filed or with no time passing in order to wait for a discussion to take place before filing this report.  I stand by my edits and see no valid reason why the reporting party couldn't have truly tried to discuss.  It feels to me as if they are upset I changed something at a page they might be gatekeeping. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding your charge that, then yes, if someone is removing WP:RS/AC from the article, I am hell-bent for keeping WP:RS/AC inside the article. WP:RS/AC is not in Wikipedic parlance.
 * Did I discuss badly? Well, the pot is calling the kettle black. You wrote absolutely nothing on the talk page of the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Tgeorgescu, what do you see the edit you label as nr 4 (=the first of the putative reverts) as a revert of, or to? How is it a revert? I notice you have failed to fill in the "Previous version reverted to" field in your report. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC).
 * #4 is a revert, since they have deleted although most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred. . Revert meaning undoing someone else's edits, and deletion is a way to undo someone else's edits.So I don't read "revert=restoring their own past edits", but "revert=undoing someone else's edits".Since, obviously, at #4 they were not restoring their own edits, but simply undoing someone else's work. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying any deletion is a revert. It is not. If you can't tell me what the previous version reverted to is, that edit is not a revert. I understand that there is a problem, but I think you're at the wrong board. Unless you have a better explanation for me, I'm considering fullprotecting the article and inviting both of you to discuss on talk. I have to agree your use of article talk hasn't been very helpful so far; it's impossible for somebody coming from outside to understand what you're talking about there. User:Alaska4Me2, yours has been worse — you haven't posted on talk at all. Can you give me a reason not to fullprotect, Tgeorgescu? Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC).
 * I will copy/paste the WP:PAGAn editor must not perform on a —whether involving the same or different material—within a . An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. 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. See below for exemptions.Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk)  16:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not very relevant. Take a look instead at the definition of a revert, here: "reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version". Why do you think this board has a "Previous version reverted to" field? I gave you an opportunity to object to fullprotection of the page — I thought you might have some alternative suggestion — wanting to take it to ANI? — but I guess not. The article has been protected. Please both of you discuss on talk and try to reach an agreement. For dispute resolution, since only two editors are involved, WP:3 might be helpful. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC).

User:2600:4040:2826:500:3720:B530:6D45:29FC reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: Page protected for a year)
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 IP user I complained last time has also been endlessly edit warring on other pages besides List of programs broadcast by The CW. I asked for protecting List of Amazon Freevee original programming, but admins only noticed The CW one. That might have been my fault as I didn't only listed it in the long comments and nowhere else. The user has been repeatedly edit-warring on List of Amazon Freevee original programming and List of Peacock original programming. Therefore I request the admins protect both these pages for a long while too as they won't stop. If you view the history of the pages you can see they've been edit warring on one thing or another for months. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment from uninvolved user: As I can conclude:
 * Edit warring happened almost one month ago, and
 * The IPs involved in this and the other mentioned article are from the 2600:4040:2800::/40 range, derived from the larger 2600:4000::/24 from the state of Virginia. Go to the contributions of the first range to verify.
 * ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 14:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because this is a long-term abuse behaviour, the user comes back to make the same edits or type od edits every time after their block expires or the page protection expires, this isn't the first time nor the only page they've edit warred on. This has been going on for a while, even before I got involved and they've blocked thrice for the same behavior as you can see here, here and here.
 * You can see the user starting edit warring on List of Amazon Freevee original programming the first time since at least May 2023 with this edit:, ,
 * You can see the user starting edit warring on List of Peacock original programming the first time since at least May 2023 with this edit:, ,
 * Listing every revert of theirs of course would be too long and impossible. I've listed some reverts here only as an example of their long-term abuse, sorting through them itself was a pain. You can see all their reverts on the history pages of the two articles.
 * As for their IP range itself, it does seem to be 2600:4040:2800::/40. I've requested admins to implement a 6 month anonymous editing ban (not a full block) on it in past to force the user to create an account to discuss their edits, but have been unsuccessful. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Linkin Prankster I noticed this exact comment was initially posted by Roman Reigns Fanboy before being swiftly self-reverted and then being reposted by you moments later (and then you changed the signature). Are you operating multiple accounts? — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 17:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I do operate multiple accounts, one for films and another for TV to keep the two topics separate and manage them better. Occasionally I cross over to the other account's topic with my one account but not much. But since Wikipedia doesn't allow operating multiple accounts, I didn't admit it until being caught. I never use my account to get involved with supporting edits of the other account in a dispute (though I might edit the same page as them occasionally). Regardless, I apologize. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Having alternate accounts is permitted in some instances, but they must always be clearly labelled as such. Please add a template to both account user pages making this clear - there's some userboxes you can user here. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 17:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I was unaware of that. I will do so, thank you for understanding. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've placed the templates on both of my accounts and specified why I have multiple accounts on both of them. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

for one year. This is really the better option ... there are too many IPs, and the likelihood of strong collateral damage from wide rangeblocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, if there are any more pages they might be edit warring since a long while on, I'll request a long-term page protection on WP:RFPP in future. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They are also edit-warring on List of Peacock original programming as I showed. I also requested protection for that page, so I hope you can do so. Thank you again. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That page protected for a year as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:85.76.164.111 reported by User:TLJ7863 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I am Raimo Olavi Toivonen and I have copyrights to my home page "https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html""
 * 2)  "I refuse to link to an illegal copy of my ISA site that infringes my copyright"
 * 3)  "You must not publicly infringe Raimo Olavi Toivonen's copyright "https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html""
 * 4)  "Has been done as you can see "Skyerise: archive.org has removal procedures, use them undo""
 * 5)  ""https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html" really means that "pitchsys.fi" site may not be copied to any archive."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP seems to be connected to this recent sockpuppet investigation. Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Forgot to add, just to clarify, the user believes that an archive link citation is a copyright violation. They've had multiple warnings and are now getting rather disruptive and edit warring. TLJ7863 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As I can conclude that the range 85.76.0.0/16 is currently blocked from editing this article. ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 20:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct – the /16 range around this IP address is already partially blocked from editing the article about Raimo Olavi Toivonen. Special:Contributions/85.76.164.111 is now also blocked sitewide for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:92.184.117.94 reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: 48 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.4)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sayaka Kanda."
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sayaka Kanda."
 * 4)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Sayaka Kanda."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Malformed report, but blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing following a report at WP:AIV. PhilKnight (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Тимофей Васильченков and User:DavidDijkgraaf reported by User:DuncanHill (Result: 7 day partial block each )
Page:

User being reported: and

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: And many many more.
 * 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: [diff]

Comments:

I'm not involved, but my watchlist is full of these two. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is the place to give my perspective, if not, delete it. I have made over 2,500 edits and always try to work together with others. This always went in a civil way until now. I have asked this editor countless times to discuss our differences on the talkpage and he refused each time. His was also a problem on the Battle of Malplaquet page were every other user involved tried to work something out. @Eastfarthingan @Robinvp11 also commented on the problems I had with with the user in question. It left me really frustrated, and I probably should have sought some oversight earlier, but I did it before Duncan left a comment. I asked @Cinderella157 to check it out. I understand that edit warring isn't acceptable, but this is what happened. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have blocked both users for 7 days from the article. I strongly advise they use this time to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:CrashLandingNew reported by User:Sutyarashi (Result: Warned user(s))
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:
 * 1)

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

Comments:

Plus, the reported user has already made repeated personal attacks on me by calling me a Vandal without any evidence of it.. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no edit warring on my part. The user who has reported me has removed well-defined citations for reason best known to him. The edit summaries for removing those citations are inexplicable. The page under consideration is Hyder Ali and the subject is his ancestry. I have added multiple sources from reliable publishers, mentioning the ancestry of Hyder Ali in great detail but due to some reason User:Sutyarashi removes those citations because he thinks they are not good enough. When i restore them, I am accused of edit warring. The reason for removal his best known to him. CrashLandingNew (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I've left sufficient reasons, both on talk page and as edit summaries, on why these self-publish and colonial sources are not suitable for use. Instead of engaging there, you've already reverted more than half a dozen times on the article. Clearly edit warring, and I dare say, pushing your POV there. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources I've added are colonial or self-published. The ones which fell under those categories were removed. The sources added by me are by reputable publishers, who have been mentioned. I've not call anybody vandal but removing well-defined sources is vandalism and I've only pointed it out. As far as POV is concerned, I can say that for Sutyarashi too. He does seem to have a bias for proving the ancestry of the subject from a certain region. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No, they are not reliable, I've already mentioned this so on talk page. Also, the main issue here is your edit warring; I had already tried settling dispute at talk page, but in no vain. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They are reliable. You've made no attempt on talk page. You remove these sources and then leave a summary on talk page, explaini why you removed those citations, i.e. not discussion.￼ CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit warring is on your part for you removed my sources without any valid reason. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Any evidence of your claims? Sutyarashi (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits and removal of citations is available in edit history of the page. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You've reverted 6 times within 24 hours; Am I right? Sutyarashi (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How? Provide the list of reversions. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user: Based on revision history, ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 09:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The edit warring has been long since March 13
 * 2) The reported user was blocked for a week in April
 * 3) *Both users are EC now and won't stop.


 * Sorry, but I have only a single reversion at article and tried to discuss it on the talk page multiple times. As for edit warring, yes, CrashLandingNew repeatedly accused me of being a sock then and started reversions, without a single evidence of it. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You've made no attempt on talk page. You remove these sources added by me and then leave a summary on talk page, explaining why you removed those citations. That is not discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Has there been any similar reports from the same page before? ToadetteEdit  (chat)/(logs) 09:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The block was due to another page and an other user was also blocked. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The reporting user wasn't blocked (clean log)
 * Please provide evidence.
 * ToadetteEdit (chat)/(logs) 09:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean him. I meant the user who reported me for that abovementioned block in April this year. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is he then? ToadetteEdit  (chat)/(logs) 09:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This guy. We were blocked together on 9th April this year. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In case you've not noticed by now, the problem here is not that who reported you and not even your block history, but that you've already violated WP:3R rule at the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * plus, the other user was unblocked afterwards by 331dot. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Coz he made a request for unblock and I didn't. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 3R, where? CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * and, I'm happy to see that you are currently discussing this on the article's talk page. , I can't see vandalism nor sockpuppetry there; please stop casting aspersions, especially in edit summaries where you can't remove them after having noticed that you're wrong. Vandalism in Wikipedia's terms is intentional damage done to the encyclopedia, and neither of you is intentionally damaging the encyclopedia.
 * As this is a long-term conflict that would greatly benefit from uninvolved experienced editors, please stop making edits that you know someone else objects to there. You both, and, have disruptively taken over the majority of the edit history. If you continue reverting, or adding material that is currently under discussion without a clear consensus on the talk page, I'll probably place a three-month block from editing the article, or a sitewide one if the personal attacks continue. Create an RfC and/or add a discussion invitation to a central noticeboard like WP:NPOVN to find a consensus; see the dispute resolution policy for further options.


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree I'm ok with this state of affairs, although there was obvious violation of WP:3R by CrashLandingNew. Anyways, should the disputed bits be removed (temporarily) till they are thoroughly discussed on the talk page (by possibly involving other editors)? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , perhaps they should be removed, but not by you. If an experienced uninvolved editor implements WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN, that may be fine; if you do, you're continuing an edit war. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree Right. Can you do so, by restoring the page to revisionBefore which all this saga started? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:199.83.163.6 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Isaiah 42."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

More reverts in the previous days. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Delfield reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "More neutral"
 * 2)  "Relevant comment by a minister of government"
 * 3)  "See talk page"
 * 4)  "See talk page / This is more specific that simply saying that there was "a claim""
 * 5)  "Limited addition, other ones to be discussed"
 * 6)  "Nemov: you have a history on POV pushing on this article, siding with sockpuppets promotional edits, you are not an admin and cannot "caution" me. These are small improvements of content deleted without any justification"
 * 7)  "Neutrality"
 * 8)  "Deleted relevant information"
 * 9)  "neutrality"
 * 10)  "neutrality"
 * 11)  "Deleted relevant information"
 * 1)  "neutrality"
 * 2)  "neutrality"
 * 3)  "Deleted relevant information"
 * 1)  "Deleted relevant information"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It looked like Delfield was going to stop edit-warring a little earlier, but they returned to it after what looks like some very contentious discussion by them and others on the article Talk page. I am WP:INVOLVED. Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I literally implemented what another user and I were discussing in talk page, I am reverted without any explanation and I would be the one edit-warring?!

I added some limited stuff to find a middle ground on what content to be made, this is NOT edit warring.

The two other users are NOT using talk page, except just to say that I should discuss more, but without commenting on content, THEY are the ones edit-warring.

--Delfield (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This user is not only an edit-warrior. He uses systematically WP:ASPERSIONS against everybody who disagrees with him. See WP:ANI and most Delfield's posts on Talk:Juan Branco. So, this is also a case of WP:NOTHERE. D.Lazard (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This was an easy call even though the edits aren't classic 3RR; there are enough reverts of different material notwithstanding ongoing discussion to come under edit warring broadly. And speaking of those discussions, Delfield's attitude—or, I should say, his attitude problem—would have tipped the balance if it were close. In addition to an increasing and worrisome failure to assume good faith, Delfield has become a poster child for tendentious editing. I have blocked for 24 hours first because this is the first block in their four years of editing, and second because my own assumption of good faith tells me to hope that this will help him see the light and begin to mend his ways. An editor carrying on like this with a longer block history would not get those considerations, I must be clear. Given his almost singular focus on the Branco article over the past several months, should this recur I would recommend a longer block from the page (and, depending on the circumstances, the talk page as well). Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:DaDeadzombie reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:47-17:40, 6 July 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:06-15:09, 1 August 2023
 * 2) 18:34, 2 August 2023
 * 3) 18:23, 3 August 2023
 * 4) 06:05, 6 August 2023
 * 5) 13:38, 6 August 2023
 * 6) 09:42, 7 August 2023
 * 7) 14:32-16:34, 8 August 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 15:17, 6 August 2023 warned by Vanamonde93, the person seeking to make changes to long-standing content, it is your responsibility to obtain consensus for the change, via talk page discussion or an RFC. You may not repeatedly revert to your preferred version once it's been challenged.
 * 09:59, 7 August 2023 edit summary by Dāsānudāsa, If you revert again I will involve admins

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Varanasi

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 17:06, 8 August 2023

This is a dispute about the images in the infobox. DaDeadzombie wants to replace the existing collage. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * DaDeadzombie's version has captions under each image, instead of a collage with captions under the collage.
 * DaDeadzombie's version also has different images.

Comments:


 * , from editing this article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Richie wright1980 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1st set of edits
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * 2nd set of edits
 * 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:

The case is not straightforward, and the reverts have occurred over the course of more than 24 hours. Richie wright1980's first few edits and subsequent reverts focus on promoting 1980 in the lead of the article, as the "start" date for being a millenial. Whilst none of the contributors to the article factually dispute that, there is a narrow band of years (1980–1983) that are regarded as potential start dates, while 1981–1996 is the commonly utilised range. The lead was worded to take these considerations into account, and the contributors to the article felt that Richie wright1980 was giving too much weight to 1980.

Richie is entitled to challenge this position, so I didn't consider his conduct problematic at this point. After a couple of reverts and some discussion on the talk page, he filed an RFC on the talk page. So far, so consistent with WP:BRD.

Then came the second set of reverts (the first isn't technically a revert because he changed another part of the article but it was advancing the same position) in which he restructured the date range section to essentially frame it as a debate between 1980 and 1981 as the start date. No such debate exists. Many different sources have many different date ranges (and one dominant one), but it's not like there is a raging debate over whether people born in 1980 are millenials or not. The emerging consensus at the RFC is that Richie's edits were giving too much prominence to 1980 in the lead, and this being the case it follows that splitting the date range section into dates that favour 1980 and those that 1981 will do likewise.

The main problem I have with the second lot of edits is that he is persisting in pushing a perspective than is currently the subject of an RFC. It's disruptive, and the RFC needs to be resolved before there are any more edits related to this particular issue. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree with you. I have made it clear within the Talk page that I would make good faith edits to the Date and age range definitions after taking on board the Talk page. You will note that I have raised this again on the Talk page. This is clearly victimisation from a cabal of page gatekeepers - of which you are one of them as a longstanding contributor to that page. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The administrators will notice that I have made a completely good faith edit and am now being victimised for providing evidence to support 1980 as a starting birth year which is supported. My most recent edit based on the Talk Page discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials
 * Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also provided 69 reliable sources of information from around the internet to support my most recent edit. Surely these must stand for encyclopedic purposes. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You will also notice that Betty Logan is also being disingenuous here. I have not made further edits to the lede after consulting with the Talk page. However, I have discussed there that I would broaden the Date and age range definitions instead. I have also revised my list of sources and carefully selected 69 sources of reliable information. Betty is conflating the disagreement over the lede section with the contribution that I have made to the Date and age range definitions which is what the RfC was about in the first place. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I made it perfectly clear the second set of reverts pertained to another section of the article. However, I think you are being disingenuous by pretending the edits are unrelated. I am happy to leave that to the presiding admin to determine though. Betty Logan (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The edits are unrelated. You first took issue with the lede section being changed which I conceded to. You are now taking issue with a good faith edit to the Date and age range definitions section. In other words, you are taking issue with every single edit that involves 1980 being proposed as an alternative starting point and then calling that ridiculous. In other words, you are attempting vehemently to protect the staus quo of the page. The only conclusion is that you have a personal issue with 1980 being supported by evidence. The 69 reliable sources which I have provided make it clear that things do not precisely match what the article currently purports and it is worthy of being expanded. You have reverted my edits unnecessarily. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also Betty you are being extremely unfair here. It was me that raised the RfC in the first place concerning the lede section and I have completely respected the outcome of that. What you are doing is scrutinising my every edit to ensure that I do not make changes to any other section. This is your attempt to protect the status quo of the page. Convince me otherwise that you will respect the 69 reliable sources provided to support 1980 and convince me otherwise that they are worthy of inclusion. It concerns me that you would rather pretend they did not exist which is why I have also called into question your reverts which are unacceptable in my opinion. Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When you accuse me of being a "gatekeeper" do you realize I was involved in an earlier RFC at Talk:Millennials/Archive_14 when the "cabal" of editors I supposedly belong proposed to limit the date range in the lead just to 1981–1996? I argued against that on the basis that it was not neutral. However, we are not here to discuss article content, but rather your conduct at the article. There is an ongoing RFC to discuss the issue, and yet you persisted with edit-warring your perspective into the article despite the fact there was no consensus for it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The RfC is concerned with the lede of the article. You will note I have not edited on that basis. That is not to be confused with the contribution that I have made to the Date and age range definitions section. You are perfectly aware that this is a separate discussion. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted to calm the situation down at Millennials. I maintain that there is a very strong case to improve the article and to split 'Date and age range definitions' section to explain that there are different starting birth years for millenials - most notably 1980 and 1981. I have added the unbalanced template to the top of the 'Date and age range definitions' section and the controversial issues template to the top of the article talk page. There is a real danger that there are a handful of long term contributors to the page who are preventing the article from being explanded upon and are using edit wars to prevent content from being expanded. I draw administrator attention to this. Please see: Diffs of my recent contributions:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * Aside from repeatedly restoring his preferred version or elements thereof, a particularly significant and radical move while discussion was undergoing, Richie demonstrates tendentious qualities during this whole contretemps, particularly a severe inability to drop the stick, an inability so severe that I wonder if he even realizes there's a pulverized horse carcass on the ground. Exhibit A for me as to why this block, the first one Richie has received, is necessary is this thread, where more than one editor tells him to stop and his response is basically my way or the highway ... well, Ritchie, that highway goes both ways and I hope you have a full tank. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:62.83.159.64 reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "That all depends on your sources. Read the arguments on both sides. The sources you must have consulted may be based on Pro Spanish sources. He is even an EMP for Spain. They had no real arguments to stop him from taking up office."
 * 2)  "And I am Catalan and I read many more references daily on the news in Spanish and Catalan. I receive this kind of influx of information every day. Read my arguments and stop behaving like a senseless bot. I am new to this and I down know how to post references. Stop changing my edit."
 * 3)  "Try if just for a bit to verify the different arguments I have given. Just to ask for a source when I am no programmer like some bookish assesser. Just try to look for Charles puigdemont political exile in English. If he is a fugitive why is he in the European Parliament? Think twice. Stop acting like BOTS. Contrast yourselves the information. Not my fault you cannot read my languages."
 * 4)  "I am trying to post links to back my arguments but it doesn't allow me, I don't know how to post them. Look in the BBC, Le Monde or Der Spiegel for references calling him an exile"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User has basically engaged in a mindless POV-pushing, edit warring behaviour on the article against multiple editors, deliberately ignoring calls for bringing the issue to the talk page and stop adding unreferenced content; they have themselves acknowledged to be unable to provide sources backing up their claims, but whenever they are reverted they keep engaging in the same behaviour insulting those who revert them. 3RR was violated at 23:12, despite multiple warnings in advance by myself and another editor.  Impru 20 talk 21:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . However, the diff that you placed at "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is not an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page, that diff should have been placed at "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning". None of the editors involved have made any attempt to use the article's talk page. Aoidh (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

User:ByzantineIsNotRoman reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I left a couple replies on the talk page addressing this, many others already pointed out why the “inconclusive” result was justified. Please lock this page to prevent further vandalism and edit warring"
 * 2)  "I would stop edit warring unless you want to get blocked from editing, leave a message on my talk page if you want instead"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit-warring within 24 hours of release from block for edit-warring. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one week. Edit-warring after expiration of this block should probably result in an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Bluthmark reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Declined for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order."
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Star Wars Jedi: Survivor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is insisting on adding several writers, WP:VG/MOS states to list one main writer. Talking hasn't worked, a final warning hasn't worked. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have blocked, but the AN/I thread that this led to, particularly these comments by, have put this in a different light and maybe this is something we should wait on. Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, they're still doing the same thing. Why wait out an ANI, when this is clearly edit warring? soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because Jayron has a point, a point which one edit to your page has a direct bearing on, and this was noted by another editor who got involved. Yes, I'm aware, the AN/I has also noted other more questionable edits by Bluthman (edits that might be too old at this point to address with a block, but it has also been noted that you could just as easily be blocked as well, and other editors on the thread have agreed with Jayron.
 * I did not say we had to wait out the AN/I. I suggested it. If, before it concludes (if it concludes), Bluthman continues editing in the same vein, I would be more inclined to block as now it cannot be assumed that they don't know any better. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Both parties are edit warring here:     from @Soetermans. That's a violation of WP:3RR, isn't it? (And to say 'talking hasn't worked' seems a bit off when there is still nothing on the article talk page—and they even started a discussion with you on your user page.) Shells-shells (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Robcolbie reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

User has been attempting to insert incorrect information to the article for some time. As per discussions at their talk page, they do not have consensus to do so. Barry Wom (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Correct information. Don't need consensus when it's clearly there for all to see Robcolbie (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kiwi Jaden reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Couples */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1169636479 by Chelsea Lee Art (talk) don't know who the heck you are but I've been doing this for years and we go by their Wikipedia articles. It describes her as a presenter too. Stop reaching."
 * 3)  "/* Couples */She’s not a pundit."
 * 4)  "/* Couples */She’s called a television presenter on her page. She’s most known besides being a former British No 1 tennis player as a TV presenter. She’s not a pundit."
 * 5)  "/* Couples */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: You will find that the other user Chelsea Lee Art has been involved in several petty disputes and has been trying to take over the thread of Strictly Come Dancing series 21. Annabel Croft is described as a former professional tennis player & television presenter on her Wikipedia page and the BBC article does too (before finally describing her as a pundit). The other user is doing this to start an edit war, whereas I am following proper procedure. So the fact you've put me here and not the other user is deeply upsetting. Kiwi Jaden.
 * I've blocked Chelsea Lee Art as a sock. I've reverted their last edits on the article, not on the merits, but per WP:BANREVERT.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * KiwiJaden reverted after the 3RR warning, whereas CLA did not; that is why you are here. They were edit warring as well, but they cannot be reported here (as I understand it) unless they continue after their warning. Bgsu98   (Talk)  14:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: CLA did indeed revert after the 3RR warning, but Bbb23 had already dispensed with them before I saw CLA's latest reversion. Bgsu98   (Talk)  15:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverting contributions from blocked/banned users such as ZestyLemonz is exempt from the edit warring policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Therealwearegetting reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I'm going to keep changing it because you don't stop hate with more hate. Make it neutral if you don't like how I'm handling it. Thanks in advance"
 * 2)  "Syntax"
 * 3)  "Removed the Karen like tone"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Khateli20 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Pblocked indef)
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:

This has been a slow motion edit-war going on for a couple of weeks over a fan nickname that I don't think has strong enough sourcing to include in the lead in Wikipedia's voice. I've left warnings, notes, pointers to WP:BRD, cceated talk page discussion without success. The editor appears to be a WP:SPA around this article so perhaps a block from the article will finally get them to actually discuss.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indef partially blocked. Courcelles (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Darker Dreams reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Aug 2:

Diffs of edit-warring and tendentious editing:
 * 1) Aug 3: diff of edit-warring
 * 2) Aug 3: and again
 * 3) Aug 11: return to edit-warring
 * 4) Aug 11: and again

This is tendentious editing. The user edit-wars to the edge of 3RR, is reverted by multiple editors (I have been one), then takes a break for a day or more, then resumes the disruption.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Question on article talk
 * User talk:
 * Edit warring warning
 * Attempt to discuss content
 * More on edit-warring
 * Warning about personal attacks and incivility (called normal editing by editors in good standing, "vandalism")
 * Warnings about resumption of edit-warring today:,

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

Comments:

There is an ongoing cluster of issues around the Witchcraft articles. It started with a page move discussion, that is now at dispute resolution and two AfDs.

While this has been going on, Darker Dreams copied and pasted the Witchcraft article and created a POV fork as Witchcraft (traditional), using definitions they do not have consensus for. Now, Darker Dreams is continuing the POV push through WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and slow revert-warring. Several editors, including myself, have explained on talk why it's not appropriate to use Indigenous links for "witchcraft", and Darker Dreams agreed that it is uncontested that Indigenous cultures use "witch" for those who do evil to their own. Yet Darker Dreams has now gone back to revert-warring to insert "traditional knowledge/Indigenous knowledge" as a meaning for witchcraft and to remove sourced content that gives a more consensus definition. While the main content dispute is a topic for the mediation, the tendentious editing and creation of POV forks is disruptive. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 19:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * from the article, not least because I at least don't want to be dealing with this while I'm at Wikimania next week. But of course other admins will be available ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)