Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive472

User:Wikibeamer reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

This user was readding staff members without Wikipedia articles (violating the "no article, no listing" rule). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * from article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Juyiscally and SOCKS reported by User:Tokisaki Kurumi (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: special:Diff/1153947480/prev

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) special:Diff/1153947480/prev
 * 2) special:Diff/1158973940/prev
 * 3) special:Diff/1163398395/prev
 * 4) special:Diff/1169971842/prev

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chinese New Left

Comments: Edit war starting from Chinese Wikipedia, this user has consistently refused to engage in giving constructive comments on the discussion page, only emphasizing that the article should be edited according to one specific POV. It should probably be reported to SOCK however I'm new at this so I'll report it here first. See also Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. -- ときさき  くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 15:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * . File a report at WP:SPI. Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:79.41.217.183 reported by User:The Herald (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1169967560 by 81.185.160.53 (talk) Multi IP vandal deleting sources"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1169967525 by 81.185.160.53 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1169967505 by 81.185.160.53 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1169955902 by 93.23.104.72 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1169955970 by 93.23.104.72 (talk) The only one removing info it's  you vandal"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1169942057 by 93.22.134.152 (talk) Source shows it's not French"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1169942637 by 93.22.134.152 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1169870945 by 77.204.146.57 (talk) vandalism by unconfirmed user"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1169942637 by 93.22.134.152 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1169870945 by 77.204.146.57 (talk) vandalism by unconfirmed user"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Bigboss9893 reported by User:60.241.85.72 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kire1975 reported by User:AlanS (Result: Resolved)
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:

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

Comments: This article has 1RR in place. I invited Kire to self-revert and wouldn't have bothered coming here if they did. AlanStalk 03:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The controversial statement of fact relating to a living person has been put back. I was unaware of the 1RR rule.
 * User:AlanS has made no attempt to resolve this dispute on the article talk page. The link posted above claiming he did is a link to my user talk page. It is the middle of the night where I am. He waited an hour and a half before taking it to this noticeboard. This is not a reasonable amount of time for me to see it, much less respond appropriately as I have done. Kire1975 (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I left a message on your talk page giving you the opportunity to self-revert. That is dispute resolution. It is your responsibility to be aware of editing restrictions which apply to each article. AlanStalk 09:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm WP:NOTPERFECT.Is the matter resolved now? Kire1975 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A self-revert is a straight undo of your previous revert. Not carrying on pushing a content dispute. AlanStalk 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The DailyBeast article is not reliable. A new consensus has been brought up on the talk page by a third party and the material you want to keep has been removed. You made no attempt to seek consensus about it before coming here to scold me. Thank you to whomever marked this matter resolved. Kire1975 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There being no consensus on reliability is not the same as being "not reliable". If you don't understand this difference then I really need to ask questions. You can go on about talk if you like, but the fact that you made no attempt to go to talk prior to edit warring speaks for itself. AlanStalk 14:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If the matter was not already decided by third parties on the talk page, I would have been happy to bring it there. WP:AGF please. Kire1975 (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you tagged my talk page with advising me WP:AGF, I might very well do the same to you for your words above if I was so inclined. AlanStalk 01:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems from this discussion and the edit history that this matter has been resolved by the users involved, and frankly that's the best outcome. Alan should have waited a little longer given the time difference noted. But I also find Kire's claim to have been unaware of the 1RR restriction straining credulity as well ... it's mentioned in that big yellow box with the stop sign that pops up when you open the edit window; you have to scroll past it to edit, in fact, by design. Yes, Kire, I can see from your userpage that you have an eye condition that adversely affects your vision. But notwithstanding that you have been able to edit here for 17 years, therefore I think you reasonably should have been expected to see that notice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm happy for this to pass, however while it may have been the middle of the night where Kire is (It was just before lunch time where I am when I left the message on their talk page inviting them to self revert), the message I left inviting them to self-revert was a mere 41 minutes after their second revert so I find their assertion that they didn't have time to self-revert before I came here to be interesting. In any case what is done is done. AlanStalk 01:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy you can point me to about this "responsibility" issue? I will pin it to the top of my user talk page. In the meantime, moving the notice onto the main page if you want everyone to see it is a better solution than insulting my medical problems and assuming bad faith. Kire1975 (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't read any assumption of bad faith at all. It's a statement of fact that there is an additional notice that comes up when trying to edit that page. I would assume you read all notices when editing? AlanStalk 13:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I said I didn't read it. Please stop. Kire1975 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * When you've had the AMPOL CT aware notice on your talk page for over two years, it is assumed you are aware of pages you edit that have AMPOL editing restrictions. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  00:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Assume anything you want, but don't assume I'm lying when I say I wasn't aware of it. The WP:QUESTIONABLE material was put back as soon as I was made aware of it. Kire1975 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kire1975, I don't wish to relitigate anything to do with edit warring, but where do you get the idea that the source is WP:QUESTIONABLE? TarnishedPathtalk 09:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That question has been answered multiple times above. This matter is closed. Seek consensus on Talk:Andy Ngo or somewhere else if you are legitimately unsure. Kire1975 (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care about the source, however I'm interested in your interpretation having read WP:QUESTIONABLE myself. TarnishedPathtalk 09:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are casting aspersion. I advise you to strike your statement. AlanStalk 01:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck. Kire1975 (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankyou @Kire1975. AlanStalk 04:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

This matter was marked resolved three days ago. I am formally requesting that someone with the authority to do so close this matter to further editing. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein reported by User:Altenmann (Result: David advised not to repeat this; page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Revert was in the lede. I started a discussion, which was interspersed with personal attacks challenging my knowledge rather than arguments. Even my sompromise solution: tag rather than text removal, - was reverted (with an insult in edit summary), without reaching consensus it talk page. - Altenmann >talk 01:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Previous version reverted to: Point location: Difference between revisions

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

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Point location

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

Comments:


 * I have stopped after Liz raised the issue on my talk page, several hours before this report was made, and will escalate to 3rd-party opinions or drama boards rather than continuing to revert myself if Altenmann continues their tendentious edits. The WP:IDHT accusations are entirely based on Altenmann's non-responsiveness to discussion points made on the article talkpage and continuing to edit-war to remove the material in question without showing any evidence of understanding the discussion. It is not a personal attack to point out problematic behavior within a discussion where that problematic behavior is happening. Meanwhile, I hardly think it is fair to count as a revert an edit that supplies a requested citation and in addition significantly improves the other sourcing on the article in question. It is also a misrepresentation of the situation to say that "my sompromise solution: tag rather than text removal, - was reverted". It was not "tag rather than text removal". It was "tag and remove the source that I had added". It was not a compromise. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I see, Eppstein continues personal attacks even here. Just the same, I could write "Eppstein's non-responsiveness to discussion points" and "without showing any evidence of understanding the discussion". - Altenmann >talk 02:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that you can read my comments on the talk and see explanations. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that you can read my comments on the talk, but cannot see explanations. Also, not a single time I insulted your expertise while being just as frustrated as you are. - Altenmann >talk 03:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe only two editors are involved in the back-and-forth at the article so it is impossible for only one editor to be edit warring. @Altenmann: Do not use cute edit summaries for example, sorry, prof, did you happen to read and understand the article you cited?. Johnuniq (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, 3RR is about " recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." And I stopped warring a while ago and started talking, but my esteemed colleague couldn't help but revert me one more time. - Altenmann >talk 03:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Cute edits: My bad. But I did see lots of refbombing in my life and did lots of fixing of misreading of sources cited. And I did have an impression that the colleague had read only the summary of the article cited. Anyway, I should have known better to be more specific and not to be a smart aleck. - Altenmann >talk 03:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should also have not violated WP:AGF re my use of sources. Also, for someone complaining about "personal attacks" in this very thread, your hints in this comment that my edits are "refbombing" and "misreading of sources" also cut very close to that line, perhaps on the wrong side of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , you are experienced, and I guess you already know where you went wrong. Your tenure here as a respected administrator perhaps would behoove the community expectation that you will not cross 3RR again. I understand these words could come out as patronising, but that is not the intention. It's more an advise from a friendly admin that we don't want your name popping up in ANEW or Arbcom reports with respect to behaviour not expected of administrators.
 * , to be honest, pushing a page-name move while actively edit-warring was a move you perhaps knew could antagonise David, and therefore, in my opinion, a well-laid out step to push him. I cannot fault you, as I understand the heat of the moment editorial actions. But you could have started with an RM discussion earlier itself than start with the page move itself (as I said, I am not faulting you; just sharing that it looked more of a bait in my opinion). I could be wrong, but do view this as a point of view you could consider in the future. I am closing this here. Lourdes  06:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, at the moment I thought it was an uncontroversial move. - Altenmann >talk 07:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * your close appears to have been premature. As soon as you did it, Altenmann immediately went back to the same point of the article and restored the disputed [citation needed] tag, also continuing to mischaracterize my edits as original research in the edit summary: Special:Diff/1170299076. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong desciption of the course of events: without reaching any consensus Eppstein edited the disputed text to even a more inadmissible form, and I tagged the new part in it I find highly dubious, i.e., I did not "restore" tag. I would suggest reverting the article to the "wrong version" until the dust settles. By the way, removing dispute tags from articles before resolution is an improper behavior, I would think.- Altenmann >talk 07:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What dispute tag did I remove? Diff, please? I moved cleanup banner unrelated to this dispute from the lead of the article to the one remaining section where it still applied. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Due to the content dispute, I have fully protected the article for a week. Please continue discussions on the talk page and use the edit protected template to request for edits post consensus. Thank you both. Lourdes  07:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite Altenmann's distractions the article is now in significantly better shape than before this dispute, because the dispute caused me to notice its other sourcing problems and fix them. That cleanup effort will now stop, perforce. I hope you're happy with that outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Paulwalsh13 reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: Page protected and editor blocked partially from the article for 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivanhoe_Grammar_School&oldid=1169618654

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivanhoe_Grammar_School&diff=prev&oldid=1170251781
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivanhoe_Grammar_School&diff=prev&oldid=1169891185
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivanhoe_Grammar_School&diff=prev&oldid=1169629355
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivanhoe_Grammar_School&diff=prev&oldid=1169619796

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

{{subst:void|You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulwalsh13

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paulwalsh13#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:

Reported for constantly removing a paragraph that reflects negatively on the school. This user is very clearly closely tied to Ivanhoe Grammar School, as they have repeatedly tried in the past to turn the article into a piece of marketing for the school, such as this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ivanhoe_Grammar_School&diff=prev&oldid=960676541 which makes references to "the colours of OUR uniform", as well as clear praise-filled marketing material about past and present headmasters. They also often change staff members with no citations.

In terms of the editing, they have removed this content now 4 times, with anonymous IPs removing the exact same content twice only 10 minutes prior to PaulWalsh13 beginning to do so. The content is a short paragraph mentioning the Fair Work commission, and is fully cited.

In terms of resolving this, I have attempted on 3 occasions to talk with PaulWalsh13 on their talk page, but received no response. They have also never responded to any comments made in edit summaries. GraziePrego (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * for reference, the user hasn't edited outside the said article. ToadetteEdit  {{sup|(chat)}}/{{sub|(logs)}} 09:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * {{AN3|b|2 weeks from the article (WP:PBLOCK)}}. I had considered indefinitely p-blocking because from what I can see there is some kind of issue with every edit they've made to this page, which is the only page they've edited. Hopefully they can take this time to use the talk page and explain the reasoning why they feel the content needs to be changed in their preferred way. I've also semi-protected the article since an IP was making the same edits. - Aoidh (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

User:User3456789123 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Partially 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:

Comments:

Looks like a WP:SPA, bent on removing anything with the word "Arab(ic)" in this GA article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * from the article. If they do not engage or change their conduct, that term will lengthen or become a siteblock.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

User:72.212.64.192 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "September 21 or December 31?"
 * 2)  "/* Early life */"
 * 3)  "/* Early life */"
 * 4)  "/* Early life */"
 * 5)  "/* Early life */"
 * 6)  "/* Early life */"
 * 7)  "/* Death */"
 * 8)  "/* Death */"
 * 9)  "/* Death */"
 * 10)  "/* Death */"
 * 11)  "/* Early life */"
 * 1)  "/* Early life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Johnny Hardwick."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mel Brooks."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * got them earlier today. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Marcelus reported by User:134.192.8.17 (reporter also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19)(Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography

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

Comments:

First EW diff falsely denied that consensus had not been achieved. Despite reporter's noted efforts, Marcelus did not engage in a talk discussion about whether consensus had actually been achieved.

Second EW diff inappropriately attempted to enforce WP:STABLE on an edit that the reporting user had RFE'd and explained. After the second and third revert, Marcelus did not participate in the discussion, and did not explain the content basis for the desired version.

During discussions on the talk page, Marcelus derailed the discussion by accusing other editors of WP:BADFAITH. (diff, diff, diff, diff, reporter's warning diff).

Marcelus has previously been blocked twice for WP:EW(first block, second block). Just like the present dispute involving Sergei Bortkiewicz, the first block also involved a dispute over the ethnicity/nationality of a biography subject. As this is a third time offense, the reporter requests that Marcelus serve a three month block from editing Sergei Bortkiewicz, Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography.

Finally, Marcelus responded by questioning the reporter's use of WP:GOODSOCK. The reporter welcomes an administrative review of the reporter's activity, and this may be necessary to assuage the reported user's concerns. Public networks often use different IP addresses, and the reporter has made an effort to disclose all the IP addresses they have used on this discussion. WP:GOODSOCKs cannot always use a constant IP address.

(also used 50.169.82.253, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 134.192.8.17 (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Passing by comment: I recommend semi-protecting this article for few months to deal with problematic IP edits and move on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate on what "problematic IP edits" means.
 * (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

IP editor also unilaterally made edits to the Sergei Bortkiewicz article twice (see and ) before any consensus was established. On the former, their edit summary misleadingly explained that the edit was a result of consensus ("It appears that there is consensus in the talk to no longer mention Bortkiewicz as Russian in the lead"), even though the ongoing discussion at the article's talk page demonstrates that there is none. IP user also opened a new topic today on this same issue elsewhere and unhelpfully did not inform editors participating at the Bortkiewicz talk page discussion. As for accusations and insinuations of bad faith, the IP editor has made a number themselves including against me. All of this suggests that they may be WP:NOTHERE and are more concerned with WP:RGW. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My RFE asserting that "It appears that there is consensus in the talk to no longer mention Bortkiewicz as Russian in the lead" came 29 minutes after @CurryTime7-24 wrote in the talk, "In other words, if the lead merely mentioned that he was Austrian or omitted mention of his citizenships altogether, that would be OK too."
 * One minute before I opened the new topic at Manual of Style/Biography, I wrote in Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz: "I am consulting Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style/Biography for an opinion on whether duress can be a factor in determining the nationality of a biography subject." Maybe I could have formatted that notice better, but perhaps someone can guide me to the proper Wikipedia policy on this.
 * @CurryTime7-24, please cite the diffs of the specific edits in which you believed I accused another user of bad faith.
 * (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at other potential problems here, w/r/t blocking or protecting.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Request for clarification: Does this mean that the proper recourse in this situation against a revert without discussion is to revert back? This would seem like the natural consequence. The reason I did not revert previously was because WP:3RR says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." However, if a revert without discussion is not considered a rule violation, this makes me wonder whether the proper course of action would be to just revert back. On the other hand, I'm concerned that reverting back would increase tensions and lead to accusations of gaming the system, which is exactly the situation I was trying to avoid by bringing my report here instead of just making the revert. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Contrary to what IP claims, I am an active participant in discussions on t/p regarding what nationalities should appear in the lead. Contrary to what IP claims, a consensus has not been established to recognise Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian and not to recognise him as Russian. The explanation of his last edit that I reverted and referred to by IP appeared on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, so outside the ongoing discussion and included statements such as: I cannot take seriously Marcelus argument that multiple sources describing Bortkiewicz as 'Ukrainian-born' or listing 'Ukraine' next to his name do not consider him Ukrainian. So IP chose to unilaterally ignore my objections that none of the sources identify Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian, but only say that he was born in Ukraine or lived there, which obviousely isn't the same thing. My 'third revert' concerned a completely different article (Bortkiewicz) and was a consequence of the 'second revert', the explanation of both is contained in the description of the 'second revert'. During discussions on the talk page, Marcelus derailed the discussion by accusing other editors of WP:BADFAITH, this is a rather dishonest description of my negative verification of the sources cited by user, which certainly wasn't me derailing the discussion. And finally my questioning the reporter's use of WP:GOODSOCK, was simply asking whose sock is the IP, what's more I'm still curious about the answer.

Basically, I find quite shocking and deeply disappointing that IP is trying to exclude me from a discussion that is not going his way. However, it reinforces my belief that my edits in the article and participation in the discussion itself were necessary and appropriate. Marcelus (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course, you're welcome to defend yourself on this page. But as for the content dispute, I wish you had raised your points in either Talk:Sergei Bortkiewicz or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. In the time after I published my edit that you reverted, you never posted to the talk page. You only posted to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography once, to redirect users back to the talk page, but then you did not thereafter post on the talk page. You still have not. As for your claims about the sources that describe Bortkiewicz' Ukrainian ties, you abandoned that discussion when we had it on the Talk page. Your RFE says that I was "ignoring ongoing discussion", but the record shows that you were the one ignoring ongoing discussion. The admins don't like when we discuss article content here, but I hope you can go to either of the two places where the article is being discussed, to explain why your rollback should not be reverted. (also used 134.192.8.17, 169.156.16.220, and 167.102.146.19) 50.169.82.253 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending myself, I'm just pointing out the shortcomings of your report and the misleading statements you made. As for the reasons of my revert my points are raised on the t/p, there is no reason to repeat them over and over. In short: to make any changes in the article you need to provide reliable sources that supports proposed changes. Marcelus (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * none of the sources identify Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian, but only say that he was born in Ukraine or lived there, which obviousely isn't the same thing – According to my Oxford dictionary, Ukrainian means “a native or inhabitant of Ukraine, or a person of Ukrainian descent,” so not obvious, or to the contrary. I had to respond, but I don’t think this admin discussion should delve into content, because there are so many statements in that discussion that are factually incorrect.
 * On the other hand, accusing other editors of WP:BADFAITH, this is a rather dishonest description – @Marcelus literally accused me of bad faith:
 * you tried to mislead the participants in the discussion.
 * you are manipulating sources and present them dishonestly in order to "win" discussion. Don't do that, it's despicable.
 * you are driven by ill will and deliberately building dishonest arguments by manipulating sources to win the discussion.
 * I stopped assuming good faith on his part.
 * Strangely, after all of this, they immediately at-tagged me in discussion to encourage further engagement. Seems to be thriving on conflict. —Michael Z. 19:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I tagged you because this comment was both directed at you and the IP user. I still stand by my opinion that your participation in the discussion on t/p Sergei Bortkevich was aimed at misleading users. I justify this by what I have already explained in that discussion. Namely you stated: That's why some reliable sources state his nationality as Ukrainian, or describe him as Ukrainian-born listing a number of sources. Undoubtedly wanting to make an impression, Bortkiewicz's Ukrainianness is something commonly accepted in the literature. However, after my verification, it turned out that of the 8 sources you mentioned, none of them describe Bortkiewicz as Ukrainian, and only one describes him as "Ukraine-born". Moreover, two of these sources clearly stated that Bortkiewicz could not be identified as Ukrainian and never had such self-identification. More details can be found in my later comment on a t/p. Initially, I thought you simply failed to check these sources, pasting the results from google. However, your refusal to admit mistake and attempts to deceive led me to believe that you were acting in bad faith from the start. What's more, your comment here reinforces that belief all the more. Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Lmagoutas reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "In the talk page you are very condescending towards the person who is suggesting a very reasonable change in wording based on sources that are not so one sided as the one you try to attach here. This seems to be anything but a fact, but to the minds of some Wikipedia editors."
 * 2)  "Tenuous connection that doesn't need to be in the first paragraph."
 * 3)  "Tenuous POV pushing connection that has no meaning in the first paragraph."
 * 4)  "The connections made later to establish this are tenuous to say at best, there is absolutely no need for this designation to be in the first paragraph."
 * 5)  "No source for that and very POV pushing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They are removing well-sourced content which has been discussed on the talk page several times. Last time was just a few days ago, though they ignore the arguments provided by other editors, including an admin, to be "aggressive". Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Another revert . Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Meral Ekincioglu2023 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Response"
 * 2)   "Follow-up"
 * 3)   "/* August 2023 */ how to see article creator"
 * 4)   "follow-up about removal of sourced info, started discussion on article's Talk page"
 * 5)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ayla Karacabey."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of sourced content */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Removal of sourced content */ how to see the details of the original editor"

Comments:

This editor is a subject expert on Ayla Karacabey. She is unhappy both about her published research being used in the article, and also about the article not recognising her work prominently enough. There has been discussion with her on her Talk page and on the article's Talk page. I and other editors have responded and directed her to WP:EXPERT, and given her a Welcome with links to tutorials and guidance. The editor has been responding but is still edit warring. Tacyarg (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2603:8000:3D3D:9C80:F1AD:988A:E618:E9C0 reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Johnny Hardwick."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Johnny Hardwick."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * by User:Ivanvector Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the user was blocked 31 hours by User:ScottishFinnishRadish. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:14C:8001:ABD0:27E9:EC25:4942:1D65 reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: Page protected)
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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

The unregistered user I've complained and had action taken against 4 times: , ,, ; has retured to edit-warring. This time on other pages now that they can't edit war on List of programs broadcast by The CW, List of Amazon Freevee original programming and List of Peacock original programming.

Like I said in past protecting pages or simply briefly blockimg their range is useless, they always quickly return to edit-warring and endlessly do it. I earlier believed they were simply disruptive and edit-warring, but they left a vandal comment in one of their recent edits. They've also been active more than usual today, maybe because I revert them quickly. This suggests to me the user might be vandalising with his reverts too.

They earlier had the IP range 2600:4040:2800::/40, but somehow have now shifted to 2601:14C:8001::/40. I examined the range and it seems that most of the recent edits are theirs, and those from others now and in past are low. So blocking the range won't impact many innocent users and I'm only asking for a 6 month anon editing ban on the range anyway, not a full block, allowing people to keep editing through accounts. Protecting pages or brief blocks of ranges won't work. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't originally intend to complain here btw, but the possible vandalism and getting tired of the user changed my mind. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * . Both Nurses (Canadian TV series) and Transplant (TV series) semi-protected for 2 weeks. Aoidh (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's really pointless User:Aoidh. They've resumed edit-warring on pages after protection expire which they've done with List of programs broadcast by The CW and others in past. Or they'll just move on to new pages. I even mentioned this in my complaint.
 * Please block the range's anon editing, the protection isn't of use. I'm really tired of them, I request you to please listen. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that they are not the only IP editors editing under that range I'm not going to block the range for an extended period of time when, as you have pointed out, they have moved to new ranges before. Your proposed solution would not work and would affect unrelated editors. - Aoidh (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Aoidh This is a LTA. I can't keep playing whack-a-mole with them on multiple articles. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It being LTA only highlights that a rangeblock would be ineffective. The of 2601:14C:8001::/40 show that they've been active on that range for 3 days, so blocking that range would only result in them moving to a new range and the IP editors trying to edit on that range (infrequent though it may be) now finding themselves unable to edit. That's not a viable solution, and is whack-a-mole of a different kind. They can't change IPs to edit these articles for now, whereas under your proposed solution they could (and from what I'm seeing, would). - Aoidh (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Aoidh Please extend the pages' protection to a month or six months then, whichever you think is best. That should hopefully discourage them. I'll just request RFPP from now about them. Linkin Prankster (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Since this activity on these two pages in particular started this month I think 2 weeks is a good start to see if it continues after resumption, to see how long a subsequent protection would be needed, if at all. I'll keep an eye on it but if it resumes after expiration, you can request at WP:RFPP or ping me directly and it will be reapplied for a much longer period. If any admin reading this thinks a longer initial protection period would work better please feel free to do so. - Aoidh (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Aoidh There's little point in that. It's your job to handle edit-warring users but you've decided to let them keep causing disruption as usual. I'll just ask RFPP. Linkin Prankster (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize that it wasn't handled the way you wanted it done, but it was handled, and your specific request for a lengthy rangeblock wasn't feasible for the reasons given above. As for the point of the length of the protection, per the Protection policy The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible so if 2 weeks works, great! If not, it is trivially simple for an administrator to reapply protection for a longer period if needed. - Aoidh (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Aoidh It's not about what I want, but the editor won't stop with brief protections. It's simply getting tiresome. The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible, and the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes. Since brief protections won't stop him, extended ones are proper.
 * He hasn't stopped in past when pages have been protected for a brief while. I don't know why you refuse to understand that. He'll resume the behavior again and I'll have to complain him again and again. So please tell me how many times should I keep complaining until he's put a stop to? Linkin Prankster (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but the issue now is your response to the articles being protected for 2 weeks instead of the 1 month you requested; between you've decided to let them keep causing disruption as usual and I don't know why you refuse to understand that (neither of which are true), I am not going to engage with that behavior and I am going to respectfully step away from this discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry if my behavior seemed rude, but that guy has caused me immense frustration. He won't stop and admins aren't doing much about it honestly. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand, I've been in that exact situation where I was frustrated and felt like the admins I reported it to weren't doing enough, but as admins we need to balance stopping disruption with making sure articles and ranges aren't protected beyond what they need to be, so that other editors aren't prevented unduly from being able to edit as well. If 2 weeks isn't enough and disruption resumes I will accept an "I told you so" and you can ping me or leave me a message on my talk page and I'll make sure to address it personally. - Aoidh (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok but I've already seen him shift to edit-warring on other pages when he can't do it on the ones he used to do anymore. If that happens I'll contact you, I hope you'll help and take stricter action. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Gracias95 reported by User:Bocafan76 (Result: Pblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

The user Gracias95 keeps on adding a trophy that Messi didn't win, I try to explain this to him as well as other users, but he continues with his edit war, also this is not the first time he has done this on the same article, he did previously on December of last year 1, 2, I also mention to him that there was a WP:Consensus at the article talk page, plus I later found out that there was another consensus at WP:FOOTY, not to include this trophy. Lastly this is user that was previously block for edit warning at another article. Thanks in Advance Bocafan76 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Partial Blocked from Lionel Messi. They've been told about this enough times. Black Kite (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Satya Sunshodhak reported by User:Cyberwolf434344 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Social status */"
 * 2)  "/* Origin */"
 * 1)  "/* Origin */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Manual reverts •C y b erw o l f•  19:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * by . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

User:AzorzaI reported by User:Durraz0 (Result: Blocked for two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (reverted that edit by user Maleschreiber ) (reverted that edit by user Uniacademic ) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

A month ago AzorzaI was warned for breaching 3RR on another article by. AzorzaI today breached 1RR on Kosovo, although when one wants to revert the banner on the top of the page makes it clear that the article is under 1RR. AzorzaI has also been reverting every day since August 3 on Battle of Kosovo, where they have made around 12 reverts against 6 editors. This 1RR breach is just the latest episode of an edit-warring problem. Durraz0 (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the report. Please have a look at Contentious_topics: was not formally aware of these sanctions, so they can't be sanctioned. I have now informed them about the issue. You may like to use WP:AE to report future violations of such restrictions.
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * what about the slow edit-warring, how can it be stopped? After the warning they got for breaching 3RR, they resorted to slow edit-warring. On Battle of Kosovo they have been reverting every day since August 3. They even edit-warred on my talk page to force me to have a "warning" for others to see

. Edit-warring does not need to be 4 within 24 hours to be called edit-warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the alert template you gave them is about Kurds, not the Balkans which our articles concern. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not notice that rule, but it is now noted. Thanks for the heads up, @ToBeFree. As for these two editors, they have previously been reported for tag teaming - and this case is really no different if you examine it. Unless an Admin would want me to elaborate regarding this report, I consider my part done. --Azor (talk). 21:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. Tu quoque usually doesn't work here; if there are separate issues, please report them separately. Perhaps at WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, right., I have now added an alert about the Balkans and Eastern Europe topic area.
 * Regarding slow edit warring, I think we can agree that has now been clearly warned and acknowledged having read the warning. If there is a slow-motion edit war going on afterwards, please file a new report that doesn't primarily complain about a 1RR violation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, will do. Thanks for changing the alert templates. AzorzaI, feel free to report me to ANI/I for "tag teaming", though another editor who made the same accusation got blocked for personal attacks. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ktrimi991 If I do take the time to report you, it won't be declined in minutes - that's for sure. --Azor (talk). 22:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Note For the record, AzorzaI kept edit-warring and got blocked for 2 weeks. Hopefully they will reflect and make use of the talk page and WP:RfC in the future. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1170698156 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1170595788 by BlueboyLINY (talk) No one is claiming it  is a radio guide,  this is common among other media."
 * 3)  "/* Weekday programming */"
 * 4)  "/* Weekday programming */"
 * 5)  "/* Weekdays */ Created a table with the weekday lineup"
 * 1)  "/* Weekdays */ Created a table with the weekday lineup"

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:
 * The list of reverts is messed up. Fodient has reverted 3x.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have not. I have reverted twice. Fodient (talk) Fodient (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * . Fodient is correct. They have reverted only twice. The first set of consecutive edits is not a revert as it added new material to the article. Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Xkalponik reported by User:A.Musketeer (Result:Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "Undid revision 1170559966 by আবদুল জলিল সিফাত (talk) NPOV" at 20:33, 15 August 2023
 * 2) "I hope this resolves the edit war. User:LucrativeOffer, please read my reply to you at WP:RPPI, and the reason you were brawling about, has been met now. I urge you to end this edit war. This is my last revert at 15:39, 15 August 2023‎
 * 3) "Undid revision 1170517128 by LucrativeOffer (talk). Refrain from starting an edit war. See my reply to you in my talk page. All of my removal were detailed in the edit summaries, read those and discuss in the talk page before reverting my edits again." at 14:42, 15 August 2023
 * 4) "Restored revision 1170498723 by Nabil (talk): Even after the semi protection of the page, it keeps getting NPOV edits that removes objective statements" at 14:03, 15 August 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments: User has been edit warring to restore his POV. Multiple editors have raised concerns about the POV but the user is unwilling to listen. He was also warned by an admin to refrain from reverting but the edit warring continues. A.Musketeer (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not edit war after the admin's advice, I technically did revert আবদুল জলিল সিফাত edit, but I was being bold here. The user changed the page description and I changed it back because it was minor vandalism. And I explicitly mentioned I won't revert back to talk pages until another user's intervention, which occurred. Another third-party user brought back my versions of edits. It's not a question of POV really, just read user LucrativeOffer's version. It was straight-up vandalism/unconstructive edits IMO. They even removed PP-protected (which I myself requested at WP:RPPI) and multiple issues templates. I broke the 3 reverts rule, I realize it with hindsight, but preventing vandalism was my goal, but still, I apologize and I should have been more vigilant about it. Anyone with good judgment may read the previous versions before I made interventions, and will know what I'm talking about. That page was a mess and still needs a lot of work. Anyway, I'm gonna refrain from editing that page anytime soon, I've had enough. X (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw the revert just now and have the block dialog open in another tab, but I will let another admin review this. Only diff #1 came after my warning at RFPP not to revert again, and technically that revert was of different content from the content involved in the edit war. But I don't agree that that edit was vandalism: it was probably improper POV, but not vandalism; you even restored part of it, though in slightly different words. And my warning was not against reverting any specific content, nor against reverting other than things you feel should be reverted, it was "the next one of you who reverts will be blocked". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with what he said also I wonder why no result was made please put the result as no violation because the edits were not vandalism why did you want report this user when the edits were not vandalism. 2601:981:4401:1CC0:10D5:634:BC3C:F022 (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * . They reverted again after being explicitly told that if they reverted they would be blocked. The edit they reverted, while not an ideal edit, was not vandalism and their revert did not fall under an exemption to edit warring. Aoidh (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

So why did the user get blocked for 24 hours just wondering. 2601:981:4401:1CC0:10D5:634:BC3C:F022 (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Mav214 reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
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:

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

Comments:

I believe the first attempt by this editor to remove the text in question, here, may also technically be a revert, but in any event it establishes the other two edits as reverts, and the page in question is subject to 1RR restrictions under the contentious topics system. Also note the misleading edit summary of the most recent revert, here, which states the opposite of the most recent Talk page consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Other than your "mentioning" it today, I don't see that Mav214 has been given a formal CT alert, which I believe is required before they can be sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They can still be blocked for edit warring. Their talk page is filled with warnings, so they are not ignorant of our attitude toward edit warring. They are, per their own deceptive wording here, a right-wing edit warrior with a "goal" that is at odds with our PAG. Their original wording is: "My goal is to fight the censorship of right-wing points of view and keep this great site neutral."
 * Per this interesting research, Wikipedia's credibility immediately increases when exactly this type of editor leaves Wikipedia, whether voluntarily or by blocking/banning, so their loss is our gain. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, I intended this as a simple 3RRN filing. I am aware of ARE, but (on purpose) I haven't placed any notices in that direction. If other editors are so inclined, that's fine, but that isn't related to my filing here. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While I respect your opinion, I reject your logic. The conclusion that I am a right wing editor is a false premise. The original wording is simply implying that those on the right deserve a voice as well. I hope you accept this truth and begin to embrace neutral and factual information flow. Mav214 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * certainly those on the right deserve a voice, if they use reliable sources. that's how it works here. this is not Facebook. soibangla (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Although it's not a CT template, they were warned about CT here, yet continued to edit war. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 16:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I would love to hear your stance on why you believe your truth is absolute. In all of these edits I have remained factual and in good faith. Nothing I have done is disruptive or going against the clear consensus that you seem to have yourself rejected. Could you please explain why you feel entitled that your differing opinion from the consensus is absolute? Mav214 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Even taking this as a standard report of a 3RR violation, Mav214 reverted three times, not four. However, that is still edit-warring, and, more important, the editor has a history of POV editing. I have therefore indefinitely blocked them.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User:1.144.110.93 reported by User:Steelkamp (Result: Blocked for sockpuppetry)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is the same person as User:TheOtherScrubby and User:TheScrubby. They are refusing to reply to my talk page messages (Special:Diff/1170852067 and Special:Diff/1170856632) and have blanked their talk page in Special:Diff/1170852492 and Special:Diff/1170856632. Steelkamp (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. I have absolutely nothing to do with either TheOtherScrubby (whose moniker I decidedly do not endorse or give any kind of blessing whatsoever) or this unregistered IP that's been making these disruptive edits. Furthermore, I have not been making many edits on Wikipedia in recent months due to being incredibly busy IRL. TheScrubby (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just checked TheOtherScrubby's user page. It is entirely unacceptable that this user has copied my entire User page and is evidently trying to impersonate myself. I hope admins are able to resolve this swiftly. TheScrubby (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Both the IP and TheOtherScrubby are sockpuppets of Sockpuppet investigations/Bryson 85, and I'll block them both momentarily. TheScrubby is simply the victim of impersonation and has done nothing wrong here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Uniru288 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 1170801619 by 193.69.198.165 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1170801189 by 193.69.198.165 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1170711438 by 193.69.198.165 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1170709471 by 193.69.198.165 (talk)"
 * 5)  "I put the text in a more appropriate place"
 * 6)  "It is not redundant, it was added that "also been described" because as it is written it seems the opinion of Wikipedia, and it is not neutral"
 * 7)  "More neutral"
 * 1)  "I put the text in a more appropriate place"
 * 2)  "It is not redundant, it was added that "also been described" because as it is written it seems the opinion of Wikipedia, and it is not neutral"
 * 3)  "More neutral"
 * 1)  "More neutral"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . While they weren't warned about this round of edit warring, they were warned on 6 August about edit warring on a different article, and made two additional reverts after being notified of this ANEW discussion, and with no attempt to use the talk page. The article being a BLP I did look at the content of the diffs to see if it would fall under WP:3RRNO #7, but the reverts don't unambiguously appear to do so and without a discussion explaining why the content might be problematic it doesn't help the ambiguity. Aoidh (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Enix150 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Comments: A look at their Userpage and Talk page will show you that they are repeat offenders attempting to edit war again. Enix150 (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)  First revert.
 * 2)  Second revert.
 * 3)  Third revert.
 * 1)  Warning.


 * As an uninvolved observer, and one who happens to agree with Enix on the underlying content dispute, I feel like it probably should be pointed out that this particular edit war is two-sided... but also that MrOllie has shown some pretty ownership behavior on this page for a long time. Loki (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This page needs some form of WP:ARBPSEUDO action. ECP and a revert restriction could help here, because this is, I th8nk, the third time I’ve seen this article here these last few months? It’s 1 AM, not doing anything, but it merits consideration. Courcelles (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * All disputes involving User:MrOllie, for the record. Enix150 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * However, I agree that some sort of AE/CTOPS action is strongly recommended. But right now, half a world away from my usual settings, there is no need to take immediate action. Daniel Case (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done the ECP and logged it, based on an examination of the full recent history (not this particular incident, which involved all extended confirmed editors). Courcelles (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page … it is obvious that it’s necessary. I am, in fact, surprised it has not been done already. Daniel Case (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

User:88.230.102.132 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Fourth term */"
 * 2)  "/* Fourth term */"
 * 1)  "/* Fourth term */"
 * 2)  "/* Fourth term */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Did not respond their talkpage warning but continued their disruption Shadow4dark (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

IPs reported by User:Moriwen (Result: Semi-protected)
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: Several anonymous IPs repeatedly making the same POV edit and refusing to discuss it. — Moriwen (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This really should have been filed at WP:RFPP, but I've semi-protected the article for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize! That makes sense -- I'll go there next time. — Moriwen (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2A02:1388:2146:298D:0:0:5C15:C9D9 reported by User:Stevie fae Scotland (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk page, but discussion took place on users talk page. 

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

Comments:

Honestly, this is the world's most pointless edit war as all the content is hidden and is completely irrelevant for the next few days. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Bigboss9893 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 72h; reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 
 * 1)  "This one was hours before the event which is way above the 78,000 number and meltzer used a wwe employee as a source as well in the source that you have for your figure Undid revision 1171202056 by Czello (talk)"
 * 2)  "Here is the source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/18111087/90000_to_attend_wrestlemania_gannett/ Undid revision 1171200781 by Czello (talk)"
 * 3)  "Detroit News and Associated press reported different numbers than this figure and you can out a disputed note not removing the entire number Undid revision 1171186521 by Czello (talk)"
 * 4)  "You need to put the 93K figure not remove it completely because it doesn’t make sense also The Detroit Free Press had used that same 88,000 as the expected turnout for most of the run-up to WrestleMania III, even as late as the day before. The Associated Press and Lansing State Journal had as well. The day of the show, a Gannett News Service blurb (no byline, but embedded in a larUndid revision 1171175095 by HHH Pedrigree (talk)"
 * 5)  "What happened? We already talked about this,you changed this ppv only and you aready gareed,93K and out disputed note after it Undid revision 1171147604 by Czello (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello There has been a dispute regarding Wrestlemania 3 page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WrestleMania_III Also Wrestlemania 38 and Wrestlemania 39 regarding the attendance figures for those events,nobody gave czello permission to do what he did to those pages that was a cause to arguments for years,Czello kept editing those pages with no permission and he has removed the wwe attendance figures that has been on wikipedia since it has launched,the numbers for those events has been disputed for years (that’s why we were all told to put the public wwe number and a note that it is disputed) he just said a couple of days ago he won’t touch the attendance figures again on one of the talk pages that we were discussing this issues about with orher users,when we landed on a common ground,he changed his mind and decided to edit those pages again because he is biased towards another wrestling promotion

it also should be pointed out that this particular edit war is two-sided,but also that Czello has shown some pretty biased behavior on those WWE pages,he is a biased towards another promotion named AEW (All Elite Wrestling) which is hosing a historic event next week in front of 80,000 in a stadium,so now he went to all the WWE previous attendance figures to make them seem lower and changed the attendance number to the biggest wrestling attendances ever to make the AEW event next week seem to be the biggest when those pages haven’t been touched for years because everyone at the time was disputing and we landed on common grounds that we would leave a note that the primary announced numbers are disputed and you can put the reason,that’s it,you should take a look at the discussion that happened here where there are people agrees with me and this is a two-sided issue

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling?markasread=289205831&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Czello-20230819170000-Bigboss9893-20230819154200

You need to talk to someone who is a veteran running the professional wrestling section on wikipedia for years and not biased to look at what’s going on,revert those pages to how they looked before the edit war that started to happen recently in the last couple of weeks on multiple pages like this one as well

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_wrestling_attendance_records

and users like Czello who has always been editing those pages daily,one dsy deciding to change the attendance for all those events during this suspicious time and he also don’t know the difference between attendance and ‘paid’ tickets and ‘paid’ attendance

And putting numbers from a source like they are the gospel when my numberenthat i used are on 99.99% of every other website except wikipedia

He ruined all the WWE/Wrestlemania pages

That reporter (Dave Meltzer) that he uses a source has changed his mind 10 times about just one evenr and shouldn’t be used as a primary source at all

He went from 97K to 94K to 88K to 80K

Look here https://tjrwrestling.net/news/report-actual-wrestlemania-32-attendance-number-still-breaks-old-record/ That’s why we should note about a dispute and put the actual public numbers that are reported everywhere

I used so many sources to dispute his argument From the Associated Press,The Detroit News (the same city that hosted the event and was actually there)

Here is a talk page on my profile from Czello asking me to not remove the disputed tags on those pages on july 24,july 26,August 12 Requesting this from me:

‘Hello, please stop removing the "disputed" tag next to attendance figures for WWE shows.’

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bigboss9893?markasread=289217596&markasreadwiki=enwiki#/editor/1

Now he is doing the opposite of what he asked me to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboss9893 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Bigboss9893 for 72h for violating 3RR and for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that often slips into personal attacks., you are warned for also violating 3RR. I've chosen not to block you because your conduct is otherwise much better than Bigboss's. However, please be more careful in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User:87.236.146.236 reported by User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

This IP (which belonged to the government of a Czech town) just declared an edit on another user regarding this article. Just recently, this IP made an edit war on the Angolan Civil War thinking that I “misrepresenting sources” despite the fact that some of these sources had stated countries had supported sides. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * These edits are five days old. And there’s only this set, which doesn’t violate 3RR. And really, this sounds like something better handled at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that I did put a CTOPS notice on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

User:47.197.239.8 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reworded"
 * 2)  "the way it appears to you is your personal belief, but Schrodinger's statement is important and must not be censored."
 * 3)  "more precise, exact."
 * 4)  "precise quote of the source"
 * 5)  "Section 2. Paragraph 8. in the source, it's there."
 * 6)  "excellent source, so must be included in Wikipedia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

My first warning on the IP's talk page was a personal message explaining 3RR in case the editor was unaware. An invitation to self-revert was rejected, and there have been two reverts of other editors since then. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

User:195.57.101.211 reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user is not engaging with discussion, instantly reverting back to their preferred version. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Page also subsequently protected for 1 week due to block evasion. - Aoidh (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User:RicardoGomez90 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2023 Leagues Cup final."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2023 Leagues Cup final."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continued addition of an uncited, unencyclopedic section that adds undue weight to an article. User has yet to respond to any attempts at communication.  Sounder Bruce  23:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

User: Fyunck(click) reported by User:Scootertop (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:

I don't want to get involved in any edit warring myself and I see that the other user has been involved in such disputes before so I hope that I can raise this issue after only 3 reverts over more than 24 hours. As you can see I tried to discuss the issue and provided references but the other user insisted on simply dismissing my submissions with POV and unsubstantiated opinion including referring to a non-existent consensus and declining to provide a source for an anecdote about a supposedly previous discussion. This ended with the promise to revert any edit I made on the issue.--Scootertop (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . I see that the other user has been involved in such disputes before so I hope that I can raise this issue after only 3 reverts over more than 24 hours. No, it doesn't work like that, Scootertop. For one thing, "involved in such disputes" is nothing. Fyunck(click) has not been sanctioned for edit warring since 2012 (and that time they were unblocked after a short discussion). Also, you're supposed to discuss the issue on article talk, not on Fyunck(click)'s user talk. Nobody has used the article talkpage to resolve the issue, so how are you going to form a consensus? On the other hand,, can you find the consensus on the matter in the relevant archive? Maybe a WP:MOS page? (The virgin talkpage of Jessica Pegula career statistics doesn't have any archives.) Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC).
 * I will attempt to look. It was long ago and encompasses every single tennis bio and article we have. Countless thousands. I tried to explain that with his bold edit as it would be the only article in that format. I was looking at it as disruptive editing but I always hesitate to bring it to ANI as that usually results in hard feelings no matter the outcome, and we need good dedicated editors like Scootertop. Sort of a last resort for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did find where the Tennis Project decided on uniformity on runner-ups when tallying. Right Here. That discussion also links to the MOS discussion. At the time I was one of the editors pushing for runners-up always until I was slapped down by three different MOS personnel at universities and CMoS. It was kind of embarrassing for me to have to change my tune, but I had no choice. This is what the tennis project has used ever since on ALL it's articles, though there might be a few that escaped fixing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that must have taken some time to find. Please follow the link and read, . Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC).
 * Way faster than I thought it would be. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:UnpetitproleX reported by User:Bilal 213 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 
 * 1)  "(Undid revision 1171183302 by Bilal 213 (talk); neither is this unsourced nor poorly sourced (in what world is an interview by The New Yorker poor source?) please do not continue edit warring, it defeats the purpose of WP:BRD—the WP:ONUS of proving that The New Yorker not an WP:RS is on you)"
 * 2)  "(Undid good faith edit by Bilal 213 (talk); Please stop removing reliably sourced text, the New Yorker article says “ Kalyan, Sethi, Aijazuddin, and Toor were all dating, but they weren’t dating one another. This changed six years ago, when Sethi and Toor realized that they belonged together;” as for SDLGBTN, the relevant forum to challenge its reliability is WP:RSN, not here; please follow WP:BRD)"
 * 3)  "(Undid revision 1170404115 by Bilal 213 (talk); I’m sorry but it is not Toor who is making some one-sided claim of dating Sethi, the two dating is mentioned in the Newyorker’s voice with even the year stated by them. It’s a profile of Toor, with bits from both Sethi and Toor, and from their mutual friends, that’s as reliable a reference as it can get.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ali_Sethi#Is_it_confirmed_that_Sethi_is_dating_Salman_Toor?

Comments:

I am writing to file a formal complaint against User:UnpetitproleX due to their disruptive behavior and violation of Wikipedia's content policies. As a concerned editor, I find it necessary to address the following issues with their conduct:

Description of the Issue:

User:UnpetitproleX has repeatedly engaged in edit warring on the article about Ali Sethi and has persisted in inserting questionable and unverified information without proper consensus. The specific matter revolves around User:UnpetitproleX's claims (I) that Sethi is in a romantic relationship with Salman Toor, based on a vague statement from an article by The New Yorker, and (II) that certain rather unwarranted statement about Sethi's purported queerness extracted from an unreliable source should be included on Sethi's page.

Despite clear concerns raised by myself and another editor named Priyanka2330 as can be seen on the talk page, User:UnpetitproleX has consistently reverted changes to the article and has insisted on retaining the unverified content. The veracity of the claim made in "The New Yorker" article is questionable due to ambiguous wording and a lack of confirmation from reputable sources. The veracity of "SDLGBTN" whereas is itself in question for being an unknown source. This contradicts Wikipedia's content policies per Reliable sources and VERIFY, which emphasize the importance of reliable sourcing and verifiability.

Furthermore, as per Wikipedia's onus policy WP:Onus and WP:Burden, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", the responsibility of proving the validity of questionable edits rests on the editor adding such content, which in this case is User:UnpetitproleX.

In an attempt to address the situation, I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page which I believe User:UnpetitproleX should have initiated as per WP:BRD when I reverted their edits not once but twice with my explanations, I however invited User:UnpetitproleX to engage in constructive dialogue regarding the contested information. Regrettably, instead of responding constructively to my concerns as well as those of Priyanka2330, User:UnpetitproleX reacted defensively and continued to engage in edit warring, consistently undoing the reversions and re-adding the questionable content.

Attempts at Resolution:

Efforts have been made to resolve the issue through civil discourse and the initiation of proper discussion on the talk page. However, User:UnpetitproleX's refusal to engage in a productive dialogue and their continued edit warring undermine the collaborative nature of Wikipedia editing.

My Compliance with Wikipedia Policies:

I would like to emphasize that my reversion, especially the last one, was in line with Wikipedia's policy on WP:Verifiability. According to this policy, "immediately removing contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced" is not considered edit warring, but rather a responsible adherence to Wikipedia's standards for reliable information.

Desired Outcome:

Considering the severity of the issue and the repeated disregard for Wikipedia's content policies, I respectfully request that the appropriate actions be taken, including:

(1) A formal warning to User:UnpetitproleX about their conduct violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly in regard to edit warring and failure to engage constructively in discussions.

(2) A request for User:UnpetitproleX to provide substantial and verifiable evidence to support their claims about the relationship between Ali Sethi and Salman Toor.

(3) Temporary suspension or editing restrictions for User:UnpetitproleX until they demonstrate a willingness to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and collaborate positively with other editors.

I firmly believe that addressing this issue promptly and firmly is necessary to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia as a reliable and unbiased source of information. Constructive collaboration and adherence to content policies are fundamental to the success of this platform.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Bilal 213 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The above TL;DR exposition (and I mean that literally in this case) is standing up and screaming to be taken to AN/I. What's left that is properly within the scope of this page (the diffs) do not show actionable edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a CTOPS notice (BLP, the one most directly applicable) to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Jbhoy reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring over a number of articles in regards to UK nationality of sportsmen Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is also at ANI - I brought it there, rather than here, because it covers multiple articles, and I'm also concerned about the insulting/dismissive responses on their talk page. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There's no point in wasting any further time on this user. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Fake Corny reported by User:Timeshifter (Result: Indef blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) 10:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) 15:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) 15:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 17:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

A Single-Purpose Account (SPA) whose 5 article edits are all on Capital punishment for drug trafficking. 4 of those article edits are reverts, and are within a 24-hour period. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ponyo bons mots 18:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

User:UnixBased reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Warned for edit warring, blocked for personal attacks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added encyclopaedic important information"
 * 2)  "Stop deleting important information, Source about the structure and the members are from their official website https://dnrsovet.su/ru/"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on People's Council of the Donetsk People's Republic‎."
 * 2)   "/* Sanctions in the field related to the Russo-Ukrainian war */ new section"
 * 1)   "/* Sanctions in the field related to the Russo-Ukrainian war */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The page falls under WP:GS/RUSUKR. Please note that they also called me "idiot" with a modifier I don't want to repeat. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * for edit warring and for personal attacks. Though the article may fall under WP:GS/RUSUKR I don't see any article-specific restriction in place outside of the general remedies, and there's no outright 3RR violation. That said, there is edit warring in a contentious topic area and I have warned them not to continue to do so. I have blocked them however as this edit summary is unacceptable. - Aoidh (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just an update to the above, I hadn't realized that the editor wasn't extended confirmed and that was why WP:GS/RUSUKR was relevant. WP:ECP has been added to the article by User:ToBeFree. I apologize for overlooking this diff, I shouldn't have overlooked it but somehow I did. - Aoidh (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:Mzajac (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 09:01, 17 August 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 10:02, 17 August 2023
 * 10:28, 17 August 2023
 * 06:41, 19 August 2023
 * 14:08, 19 August 2023
 * 14:42, 19 August 2023
 * 10:11, 21 August 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Igor Girkin
 * Talk:Igor Girkin
 * Talk:Igor Girkin

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

Comments:

The subject of the dispute is categorization of an article in Category:Russian mass murderers. The article was stably categorized with this with no discussion for over seven months until kashmiri removed the category, then refused to respect BRD during discussion. Although the article is subject to WP:BLP, the categorization isn’t really debatable as the subject has been convicted in court for the murder of 298 people, which clearly falls within the criteria for inclusion given in the parent Category:Mass murderers. Kashmiri has presented a number of arguments but none stands scrutiny; anyway, there is no consensus to remove the category.

I’m not sure if they have technically violated 3RR, but they insist on imposing their version on the article without consensus and continuing to do so is at least inappropriately skirting the rule. The article in question is subject to WP:CT related to Eastern Europe, and subject to WP:GS/RUSUKR. —Michael Z. 14:50, 22 August 2023‎ (UTC)


 * All my reverts complied with WP:BLPCRIME and specifically WP:BLPREMOVE: they removed defamatory material about a living person – attempts by the filing editor to categorise the subject as a "war criminal" despite lack of any sources in support, or alternatively as a "mass murderer", likewise without any supporting source and despite the fact that the Mass murderers category explicitly does not apply to the subject (as it does not apply to "acts performed in service of a state"). Note that I don't question the subject's acts; only disagree with adding potentially libellous labels in Wikipedia voice. The filling editor deserves a trout IMO. — kashmīrī  TALK  02:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * , Special:Diff/1171707974 was unnecessary. If blocking for their edits to the article about Igor Girkin is justified, the same justification can be applied to your edits as well . A consensus to include one of the two removed categories is arguably forming at Talk:Igor Girkin § Category:War criminals, but it's not clear enough to be enforced like this against remaining concerns during the still-running discussion. The only possible point of Special:Diff/1170842087 can be forcing Kashmiri to discuss further, but this isn't a valid reason for restoring challenged material to a biography of a living person. So while I hope that of all 46,034,610 users on Wikipedia, it won't be Kashmiri removing the category again, I have to insist that you won't restore it afterwards.
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Wikieditors2023 reported by User:Scope creep (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

'''Diffs of edit warring and the state of the BLP"

Editor who seems to be a UPE has a large WP:BLP that is mostly unsourced promotional dross. Been reverted twice by two seperate editors in good standing as part of WP:NPP review.  scope_creep Talk  14:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

User:89.12.233.14 reported by User:DrKay (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
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:


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

User:איש מאמין reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Clarification of information."
 * 2)  "Clarification of information."
 * 3)  "Clarified meaning of information presented in article."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The term is not incorrect */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* The term is not incorrect */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* The term is not incorrect */ try reading WP:BRD"
 * 4)   "/* The term is not incorrect */ to learn to work cooperatively, try Help:Introduction"

Comments:

New single-purpose account entered first as first inserting his changes then making this set of reversions when that was undone. Editor has stated his intention to continue non-cooperative editing ("I’ll continue to pursue truth and inject the author of the word into the article regardless of your bullying and harassment.") in the face of multiple (well, two) editors having undone his edits. Nat Gertler (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Secarctangent reported by User:Natemup (Result: 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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: I also made several reverts, as I thought the changes I made did not need special consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natemup (talk • contribs)
 * I converted all the mobile diffs above to regular diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I would politely note that I have repeatedly asked user Natemup to bring his concerns to the article's Talk page and he has repeatedly refused to do so. I am surprised he escalated to this approach.  I would suggest that we instead address this on the relevant Talk page first.  Secarctangent (talk) Secarctangent (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * . Secarctangent boldly added the content in question a while back, and when it was challenged with concerns that it failed verification (which per the source it appeared to) they edit warred to keep it in the article rather than follow WP:BRD and discuss the changes (per this edit summary that are familiar with how that should work). Also worth noting that Natemup did bring the issue to the talk page about 9 hours before Secarctangent's comment above that Natemup repeatedly refused to do so. Aoidh (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that I was wrong about Natemup not bringing the issue to the talk page. He hadn't done it originally, but did indeed do it eventually before I wrote the above, and I should have checked again to make sure he hadn't done it since he last checked.  Mea culpa. Secarctangent (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Loibird90 reported by User:Itssheenabautista (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

I thank the user for their contributions in improving articles, however, when editing an awards list for List of awards and nominations received by Maricel Soriano, user has not conformed to MOS per Awards and accolades. I have made edits to correct that, and only did so once so as not to go beyond the 3RR limit, but my edits have then been reverted and have been accused of being a vandal. User seems to be adding non-notable, highly questionable awards, and is incorrectly using the tally table of the awards template. This is also evident in another list List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Cuneta, which I have done a fair bit of edit to fix. A different case, but might be relevant to user's behavior is that they're an active editor within the Philippine entertainment space, but have been adding unnecessary monikers/titles to actor/singer articles (i.e. Empress of Drama, Daytime Queen, Noontime Queen) and claiming media consesus when there is none, which to my understanding is WP:PEACOCK and do not add value to the articles. Posted to the editor's talk page but it has sinced been blanked (which is perfectly fine assuming they had read it. Itssheenabautista (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The infobox award was already removed to avoid from any additional disruptive changes and is currently being adressed at the talk page of the articles mentioned. If you have any more concern, you are free address it on the talk pages of the articles, as they are still newly made articles. Thank you. Loibird90 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * . This is a new article created by Loibird. They've made only one revert. This report should not have been filed. Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Zagreus99 reported by User:PericlesofAthens (Result: Blocked 48 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: User is very inactive on Wikipedia, but is now suddenly engaged in an edit war on the page for Cleopatra (a Featured article that has already been vetted by our community). They have introduced some improper word choices for the prose of the lead section (e.g. "effectuate" in a context where it does not make sense), using the claim that they are simply tidying up the prose. Among their various unnecessary changes, they also use a hyphen ("-") for a sentence break (instead of an em dash "—"), which contrasts with the rest of the article and goes against style guidelines in the WP:MOS. I suspect a possible sock account, as the user has repeatedly ignored my edit summaries and talk page request, while providing edit summaries that are not honest reflections of their overall edits. Pericles of Athens Talk 23:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

User:169.1.11.218 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Page protected for six months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

The article on Port Elizabeth was moved to Gqeberha as a result of a move discussion Talk:Gqeberha, which resulted in changes to the lead and the infobox. But one or more people keep changing one or both of these back.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC) 169.0.112.155
 * 2) 12:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Awesome178
 * 3) 17:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Awesome178
 * 4) 11:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC) 209.203.23.11
 * 5) 18:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 169.1.11.218
 * 6) 22:06-09, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 169.1.11.218
 * 7) 07:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 169.1.11.218

Please can this page be given long-term protection. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Comments:

Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

User:CleanUp128999 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Accurate reflection of sources"
 * 2)  "One sec was gonna extract"
 * 3)  "I’ll extract the info from sources and add it to the body"
 * 4)  "I simply moved pre-existing text(that is cited) into the intro. There is no original interpretation from me. Everything was already in article and already cited. Undid revision 1172170231 by Di (they-them) (talk)"
 * 5)  "Reverted edits, as everything I added already existed in the body. I just copied it and bought it up to first section. Undid revision 1172169608 by Di (they-them) (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Mug shot of Donald Trump."

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

Comments:

The user in question has continued editing the page without any discussion of their edits, even after being notified on their talk page (as linked above) as well as being pinged repeatedly on the article's talk page. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:55BA:894:1C3C:1BC2 (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Noting that this user has also been given appropriate CTOP warning in American Politics and was specifically advised not to edit war in place of talk page discussions. This is also a newer editor who does not seem to have ever received a 3RR warning before and does appear to have stopped following the warnings, so sanctions might be premature. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 23:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * They haven't stopped, they're just no longer being reverted. If they understood that content that has been objected to should be removed pending a consensus, they would self-revert. There's nothing to indicate that they won't continue edit warring as soon as someone removes their preferred version again. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  23:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Possible I'm missing something here, since a lot of content was disputed. Looking at their last linked diff above, from the same time the 3RR warning was issued, they were contesting the contents of the second paragraph of the lead. Following your warning, they undid part of that revert —I agree that a full undo since they had already crossed 3RR would have been more appropriate (but again, not sure they know that). However, since the warning, I see that you and other editors have made multiple changes to that paragraph that they have not responded to with reverts; right now, things seem to be stabilizing , with no clear indicator to me that they haven't heard these warnings. They did ignore several earlier informal warnings, and only changed their behavior when given an explicit 3RR warning.
 * Maybe I'm being naive in reading them as good faith here, IDK; I just wanted to note it along with noting the earlier informal warnings. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 00:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

User:98.193.201.252 reported by User:Carter00000 (Result: Blocked 55 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Clarified description of Nigerien faction, which is not a recognized government."
 * 1)  "Clarified description of Nigerien faction, which is not a recognized government."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP edit warring to insert less common wording. Also frequently does not use edit summaries when reverting. Carter00000 (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@User:HiResolutionEdits' edit warring at Vivek Ramaswamy (Result: Partially blocked, page extended-confirmed protected)
@User:HiResolutionEdits Has been doing repeated edit warring at Vivek Ramaswamy, despite being told repeatedly to stop edit warring, including telling them on their talk page, informing them of the edit warring policy. A Socialist  Trans Girl  11:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Please first attempt discussion on the talk page, if edit warring continues, please make a formal report(as others appear above) and provide diffs. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot I did attempt to bring it to the talk page here, and they've been notified several times of the discussion and that they should take the dispute to the discussion, however they continue edit warring. Here's the diffs      and .  A Socialist   Trans Girl  11:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That user has now been partially blocked. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

User:SanAnMan reported by User:Happily888 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits by Happily888 (talk): Take it up with admins you are clearly editing with a biased virwpoint"
 * 2)  "Reverted good faith edits by Happily888 (talk): One is named MasterChef: Back to Win, the other named MasterChef Australia: Back to Win, they are not identical"
 * 3)  "Reverted good faith edits by Happily888 (talk): They are not the exact same name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on MasterChef (American season 12)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "hatnote should read "original version", as has previously been discussed SanAnMan's reversions to his preferred version is incorrect."

Comments:

The user has been involved in previous edit warring occasions and consistently reverts pages to his preferred version. They also have significant biases against international articles and misunderstands that common names not just apply in the US but also to international articles. Happily888 (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply: User:Happily888 has also broken WP:3RR on the article and has frequently done so in the past and has exhibited clear geo-bias on this article, and a complaint has been filed at WP:ANI. - SanAnMan (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * please do not post on multiple forums such as ANI and here with the same reports. Also, Happily888, you have broken 3RR based on a premise that is not backed by the consensus at the previous RfD. Unless you undo your last edit, and stop misrepresenting consensus, you will be blocked. Thank you, Lourdes  08:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Likely a coincidence: 05:03 at ANI, 05:05 here. I have closed the ANI thread for now (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

User:93.87.123.180 reported by User:Santasa99 (Result: Both editors blocked)
User:

Previous version reverted to: and

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


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

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

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

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

Comments: Prolonged IP disruption of pages Ljubuški and Dračevica with inclusion of unsourced information, abusing undue WP:Piping to make a point. ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Adendum: IP is now created exactly the same report below, probably copy/pasting my own. I didn't intend to explain anything beyond the 3RR and edit-warring, but now I want to point out that the edits in question are plane nationalistic POV pushing without sources or via misrepresenting them. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  20:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The material I have added is backed by period sources and is published by professional historians. I have added sources, so your claim of POV pushing without sources is not true. Speaking of nationalism, you are the one who might be interested in keeping data and sources from Wikipedia - that would explain why you started removing the content I have added, even thought it is sourced. 93.87.123.180 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sources that you are misrepresenting are RS, which I am using myself. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  20:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have reported you, instead of the other way around. As the logs can clearly tell, you were the one who started the disruptive editing and removal of sourced content. But you are an experienced editor, so you acted first.
 * Dračevica 1
 * Dračevica 2
 * Dračevica 3
 * Ljubuški 1
 * Ljubuški 2
 * Ljubuški 3
 * As for the misrepresentation claim - it simply is not true in both cases. Tvrtko I based his right to kingship on established Nemanjić tradition and Stjepan Kosača was largely autonomous from the Kotromanić dynasty, so his title of Herzog is more important than his title of Grand Duke of Bosnia. Both titles add context and enrich the articles. 93.87.123.180 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Given that neither Santasa99 are happy with page protection as a way to resolve the edit warring in lieu of blocking, I am removing the page protection and blocking the editors involved, since it does not appear that they intend to discuss the issue on the talk pages of the articles. - Aoidh (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * for 4 days. I suggest both of you use the article's talk page to come to a consensus regarding the material, and to utilize dispute resolution such as WP:3O or WP:DRN if some sort of understanding can't be reached on the talk page between the two editors. Aoidh (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh you protected only one page, Dračevica,, and left out Ljubuški Fortress The page you protected is now "fixed" by third party, and it looks as it should - without enormous piping which was introduced without prior consensus. However, the same thing should apply to Ljubuški Fortress, where the reported editor introduced POV and/or undue content, without respecting WP:RS, WP:Piping and WP:DUE, and without prior discussion and without achieving consensus . - I always thought that is the proper sequence of events, not the other way around. Ip's content should be rv and then discussion can commence. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Discussion should have begun long before this report was brought here, and you are party to that edit warring and should have opened a discussion once it was known that there was a dispute. I protected the first page to prevent the IP from edit warring back to their preferred version, but at the moment I didn't see that being necessary on the second page, but since this is a concern I have full protected that page to ensure that discussion takes place and a consensus is reached to prevent further edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, except you should have accepted my request per report to either rollback the article to and/or act on IP's fourth revert on that article - after all, it was Ip editor who first introduced something without consensus, something obviously disruptive in my view as a party, and then continued to edit-war over my disagreement without opening discussion to persuade me that his edit is OK. At this point IP has practically got his POV without consensus, and you protected it not only from further "disruption" from me or Ip, but from any other passing-by third party that would most likely remove his edit, just like in case of Dračevica.  ౪ Santa ౪  99°  21:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This venue is to address edit warring. It is not a venue to judge which editors are "correct" and which ones are "wrong" and to enforce a particular version; in fact I cannot take a side in a dispute and then act in an administrative capacity to enforce that side of the dispute. Use the talk pages and get a consensus regarding the content. - Aoidh (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's at least partly my point too - reverts on at least one of these pages reached the required threshold for sanction, especially if two articles are presented with the same tendency to edit-war over something someone else is very concerned is improperly introduced into the articles. And if you checked beyond sheer 3RR scope, you would notice that IP edit-waring over something that isn't raw content disput but is more disregard for basic guidelines like undue linking, improper piping, and all just to make a point. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  22:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your point has been noted, and now would be the time for you to use article talk pages to discuss the content, not just for this. Let me be clear, you and the IP were not blocked only so that you could discuss the content on the articles. If either of you deign to not use the talk page and merely wait out the protection to revert back to your preferred version you will be blocked for edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. I really don't have a clue what else is there to discuss, beyond what I discussed in my request on article's TP. I can, though, only hope that when I find myself on the other side of a report such as this one, that you will maintain same constant criterium. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  01:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:9289:4B00:A89E:201D:305:C25F reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted vandalism by Yoshi24517 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Reverted vandalism by UhJennyP (talk)"
 * 3)  "Aligned biased description with the description used on the individual's WP."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1172689364 by Esolo5002 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Re-added POV-section, tag is not inaccurate. Removed in violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See here for discussion, as Twinkle was breaking and wouldn't let me submit unless I put it here. May have accidentally delayed reporting, apologies. 5 reverts in 24 hours. Keeps trying to change wording despite what the source says.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 22:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * /64 range blocked for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * CTOPS notice added to article talk page, as well. Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:79.50.172.35 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: already handled)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1172834527 by 77.205.116.254 (talk) No, since the cookies italian the double origin is apt"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1172832716 by 77.205.116.254 (talk) It's in the source. And it's not only where is invented but who make it"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1172820939 by 77.205.18.191 (talk) Based on Italian pastry"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also same edit war on Pissaladière Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:91.213.77.202 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: semi-protection, talk page discussion)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1172834175 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1172834129 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1172833788 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1172833724 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1172833593 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1172833406 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1172833369 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1172832824 by 79.50.172.35 (talk) Your source is a book of travel book"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1172833043 by 79.50.172.35 (talk) Sorry a book of recipes"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1172831875 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 1172831839 by 79.50.172.35 (talk) Your source is not reliable"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 1172830627 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 1172830556 by 79.50.172.35 (talk) There are already many sources saying otherwise"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 1172829497 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1172831875 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1172831839 by 79.50.172.35 (talk) Your source is not reliable"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1172830627 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1172830556 by 79.50.172.35 (talk) There are already many sources saying otherwise"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1172829497 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1172829497 by 79.50.172.35 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: It's being handled. User:AntiDionysius, it always takes two to tango: you could have reported both of them. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I did report both of them. Here and here. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:31.205.18.96 reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "*Cherrypicked sources. And ive provided the sources that disagree, which are not even from China. Even the Russian invasion entry has the word "alleged""
 * 2)  "i wasnt talking about genocide (although it's shaky too, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/02/13/genocide-is-the-wrong-word ), I'm suggesting that it doesnt fit the definition of ethnic cleansing as "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas". If other entries of this article use weasel words like "alleged" this entry deserves it too."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1172655830 by M.Bitton (talk) Not according to the UN report (please read it, or do a quick Ctrl+F). "Not all experts agree on every case, particularly since there are a variety of definitions of the term ethnic cleansing", therefore weaseling it could make it more neutral."
 * 4)  "/* 2010s */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: The very first entry on their talk page is a warning by M.Bitton.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: And they continue, even after I notified them of this report.

Not reverting anymore. I'm simply using the same wording of the next entry below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.18.96 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

they also used to edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The above IP would be covered with a rangeblock of, but I chose not to do that as it seemed there would be collateral damage. However, should other IPs on that range be used, or they resume after the block expires, admins should feel free to impose a longer partial block from the article on that range. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:50.39.134.2 reported by User:Czello (Result: blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First set of edits:


 * 1)  "There is no independent source for these figures, they come solely from AEW. Wikipedia is not an AEW marketing project."
 * 2)  "These figures are unverified, they have no independent source outside AEW."
 * 3)  "Both figures have been claimed by AEW, but neither have been independently verified."

Second set of edits:


 * 1)  "Still no independent verification, all references use AEW as source."
 * 2)  "Again, references only source AEW, with no independent verification"
 * 3)  ""Entertainment purposes""
 * 4)  "Attendance figures announced by pro wrestling companies without independent verification are considered for "entertainment purposes" only."
 * 5)  "No independent verification of attendance."
 * 6)  "Attendance figure remains unverified."
 * 7)  "Attendance figure must be considered fake without independent verification. This is pro wrestling."
 * 8)
 * 9)

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

Comments:

I reviewed the RfPP for All In (2023) and blocked this account for 24 hours for edit warring. It seemed like a better alternative than protecting the page. It seems like this can be closed out now. If they resume edit warring after 24 hours, please report them again to this noticeboard. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I expect edit warring might continue from other IPs, but I'll cross that bridge should it happen. — Czello (music) 20:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kakarott reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1172777637 by Czello (talk) See talk page.  This figure is very much in dispute and edits to the contrary represent a bad faith attempt at gaslighting.  Until the dispute is resolved this figure should remain as-is, with the provision that it is under dispute."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1172745484 by Drickfire (talk) No consensus has been reached, no discussion on this page's talk page.  This article's accuracy remains in dispute and further discussion on the talk page should occur before major edits such as this, as this is tantamount to page vandalism."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1172718679 by Czello (talk) Edits made in bad faith"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1172682085 by Czello (talk) - Multiple source items within this very Wikipedia article cite different numbers.  There is no authoritative answer to this, and a link to a single tweet, from a non-primary source is not sufficient to make a clear determination.  Since WWE are the primary source reporting the attendance, their number is considered valid, if not disputed, until proper sources clearly establish otherwise."

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

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

Comments:

Note that the User was notified of this discussion but they have chosen to delete it. — Czello (music) 20:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Korwinski reported by User:Mellk (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 08:46, 29 August 2023‎
 * 2) 22:39, 29 August 2023
 * 3) 23:10, 29 August 2023
 * 4) 23:12, 29 August 2023‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

On the talk page, rather than addressing the edit in question, they threatened to submit a report to ANI if their edit would be reverted again. Mellk (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Now they are also making assumptions about nationality that sound like attempts at personal attacks. Mellk (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * On my talk page user had threatened to block my account. Given that the claim above is not exactly true and the fact above user accused me of the very same thing, that is literally a double standard. But given that this common 1 2 3 figure of speech used by Russians themselves somehow may be considered offensive to non-Russian-speaking people from non-post-Soviet countries, I do apologise. Korwinski (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is false. I said that they violated 3RR so it might lead to a block if they do not self-revert. They also referred to my reverts as vandalism. Mellk (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I said and I quote: "Further reverts without specifics listed here (imaginary rules not included) I will consider Wikipedia:Edit warring and forward this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents". Thats literally the steps that you had followed afterwards. How is my message above that says procedure of the actions that you had followed a "threat", but your messages then isn't? Korwinski (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Pickle Rick 02 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24h and page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop the edit war and answer the questions in the talk page"
 * 2)  "It gonna heppen. Your name is not sourced enough. Your sources cannot overwhelm the other sources. Let's keep it as it was in the 2022 until we have consensus. And you haven't answered my question: Why دولة instead of إيالة (even though إيالة is the most used one)?"
 * 3)  "As i said there is no consensus. Let's keep it as it was in the 2022 version + i'm sure you know well that إيالة is widely used in Arabic sources, so why do you prefer putting دولة? Btw, thank you for adding the turkish name."
 * 4)  "Since there is no consensus, let's remove دولة and leave it only as الجزائر similarly to the 2022 version of the article. But I still believe that إيالة الجزائر is the correct one."
 * 5)  "Read my previous edit summary"
 * 1)  "Read my previous edit summary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * User_talk:Pickle_Rick_02

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Regency_of_Algiers

Comments:
 * This editor has done nothing but disrupt the progress of the article and assume bad faith from the get go. Their personal attacks on the talk page speak for themselves (apparently, they have a history of attacking others as they've done the same thing on the French Wikipedia before moving here). M.Bitton (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As for "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page": It was me who started the discussion and unlike the other editors, you haven't even tried to resolve the dispute. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It was definitely you who started casting aspersions on the talk page (what you started is anything but a discussion, luckily, the unacceptable title of that section has since been redacted by another editor). The only disputes that I'm interested in resolving are your disruptive editing, edit warring (you broke 3R) and personal attacks. M.Bitton (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * .Support The editor assumed WP:ABF from beginning, first claiming that the Ottoman Turkish term « Eyalet » should be added as it was a WP:COMMONNAME, he then resorted to removing the Arabic name « Dawlat » and the WP:RS claiming they are not WP:NEUTRAL without WP:VERIFIABLITY.
 * In addition to WP:EDITWAR + WP:PA Nourerrahmane (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the same term in Arabic. And it's literally the title of the Arabic Wikipedia article. I know that it's not RS, but it was the title for years. Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You broke 3R, so don't change the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say it wasn't so much 3RR as EW in general ... a very tendentious attitude of "this is right and I'm not going to listen to any argument otherwise". Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I want also to note that M.Bitton and Nourerrahmane have attacked me in their comments and edit summaries by calling me "disruptive editor". Pickle Rick 02 (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * by and page protected for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

User:94.189.167.200 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Declined as premature and malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Original POV unsourced change
 * 2)  - Original unsourced change reverted, this is their first revert.
 * 3)  - Another editor objected and restored original version, this is their second revert.
 * 4)  - Editor attempts to add the rejected changes here are part of a larger POV edit.


 * Two editors have objected to this change based on it being an unsourced POV.
 * See edit summaries on page history

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:94.189.167.200

Comments:


 * Just a note, before an admin blocks, they need to have been warned about edit warring and they have to have ignored the warning. The user appears to have never been warned about stopping their edit war, except in the notice you gave them prior to reporting them here.  Please make sure you have tried to have that conversation with the user, and explained to them what edit warring is, and why it is bad, before reporting them.  -- Jayron 32 15:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not just due to above (well, that's not really malformation), but because the link is given is red (maybe you meant just Old Serbia?) so therefore there cannot be any edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I decided to look at that page's history. The IP did not break 3RR (the reporting editor, as too many do, mistakenly counted the original edit as a revert). However, I put a CTOPS notice on the talk page, and appropriately advised the IP, since this clearly comes under ARBEE and these edits are the sort of thing that case addresses. If this continues after this I would advise requesting protection. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:300:4500:2050:5163:1B25:C957:154C reported by User:Czello (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1173009919 by Czello (talk) The rest of the wiki page serves as a source for these edits, at least temporarily. What's important is that the wrong info is no longer up. Joseph Stalin did not create Marxism-Leninism, that's ridiculous."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1173009623 by Yoshi24517 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1173008951 by Yoshi24517 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Removed blatantly incorrect information and added proper text."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1172897369 by Vif12vf (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Warning here

Comments:
 * Result: Page semiprotected. Please use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

reported by (Result: Nominator partially blocked 2 weeks)
I am hereby creating a report on the user @E-960, who is currently engaged against both myself and another user named @Dawidospowidos in a malicious edit war on the legitimacy of the Gorals as an ethnic group. This is substantially backed up by the article, the identifier when searching for the article and of course the sources that form the article. In various parts of the article, @E-960 has been insistent on using language which is unscientific and inaccurate such as "subethnicity of the Polish nation", which is neither accurate or precise (one can be an ethnic group that is identified as part of a nation, or ethnic groups spread throughout multiple). I have also caught the user adding 'ethnographic sub ethnicity' to sentences which when checking the source, are not included. The user is in effect fabricating sources to fit their own agenda. It is unfortunate that this has to be resolved this way. I first got involved when I saw that the user had been for over a year undoing edits that do not fit with their own narrative, and refusing to reach consensus in the talk page. I am still learning the Wikipedia customs, so I apologise if there have been any wrong doings on my part and I hope for this conflict to be resolved. Here are some examples of where the user E-960 blatantly reverses the edits based on his own opinion.

Furthermore, in this source changes the second paragraph to add in this sentence: "Gorals as a separate ethnographic sub-group began to form in the 14th century." But if we check the source it says "Górale podhalańscy jako odrębna grupa zaczęła kształtować się w XIV wieku." which if translated into English, and yes it is a correct translation, it only says 'seperate group.' This shows that the user E-960 is adding in his own content without the source references.

Finally, I want to address this statement in the user E-960's revert here: where he says "Revert, stop edit warring, Gorals and Ruthenian are not used interchangeably this is a dubious statement or a minority POV at best, there is a big difference between Podhale Gorals and Ruthenaian Gorals, you are mixing the two." A) no one is saying Goral and Ruthenian were used interchangeably. Dawidospowidos is saying Vlach and Ruthenian were B) The user E-960 is assuming all Gorals are Podhale Gorals and that Ruthenian Gorals are a thing, which they are not. It would be like saying "Scottish Gorals" and it is an attempt to deligitimise the Gorals as an established ethnic group, which the sources are clear on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 19:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * from editing this specific article only, for 2 weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

User:EmilePersaud reported by User:E-960 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User EmilePersaud is re-adding text first added by user:Dawidospowidos, which was reverted because the statements were of dubious nature and not backed up by the sources cited. In fact, it appeared that Dawidospowidos was simply pasting-in random citations to give the impression that a statement was backed up by a reliable source. However, after verification it became apparent that the sources did not say what was being written in the article and in one case a statement about Wojciech Mateja (a Goral robber band leader), had as its reference: ''Nicholas W. Reyland (2011). Zbigniew Preisner's Three Colors Trilogy: Blue, White, Red: A Film Score Guide. Scarecrow Press. p. 373.'' (which is a French psychological drama, nothing to do with Gorals). Ultimately, this amounted to disruptive editing and borderline vandalism and now EmilePersaud is re-inserting parts of those reverted edits and edit warring in the process. Also, here user EmilePersaud added the controversially titled "Current Goral Activism" subsection, however in a similar pattern to user Dawidospowidos, the first reference source citation used is dead and the validity of the statement cannot be verified, and the second reference source citation does not say anything about "activism" in fact, it's just a webpage with links to other articles. --E-960 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, despite user EmilePersaud claims to the contrary, other sources such as this Slovak one do say that Gorals are a "subgroup", however this citation has been removed by user EmilePersaud, who is pushing a separatist and activist narrative about the Gorals. Ultimatly, user EmilePersaud is now making all kinds of accusation against me, however what everything comes down to is that user EmilePersaud broke the 3R rule and the statements, which user EmilePersaud added, failed verification or simply did not have any reference source cited in the first place and were of dubious nature. --E-960 (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Mellk reported by User:Korwinski (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:57, 29 August 2023
 * 2) 22:49, 29 August 2023
 * 3) 23:12, 29 August 2023
 * 4) 07:28, 31 August 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

On August 29 I've made few few edits on the page adding new info, sources and grouping cluttered information (multiple romanisations of the name Rurik) in a footnote as per Manual_of_Style/Biography that says "Do not cram multiple hypocorisms and nicknames into the name in the lead sentence" and "Various rulers and other nobility have often had numerous variant names in different languages. Avoid clogging the lead with a boldfaced litany of these; reserve them for an appropriate place in the body of the article, in an infobox or language sidebar, or in footnotes.". These edits DID NOT remove any information from the article with the exception for this sentence "Vasili IV, who reigned until 1610, was the last Rurikid monarch of Russia" moved to the "Legacy" section of the article with the explanation that: he was one of the two members of the cadet branches of Rurikids as family of Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki is now considered to belong to the Rurikids after all.

User Mellk actions were as follows: 1. He didn't want to start the discussion or provide any valid reasons for his disruptive editing. I've started the discussion myself, and so far he considers rules that I had mentioned above from to support his claim that only Russian romanisations can be included in the lead as he says they are more widely known/common. He didn't provide any Wikipedia rule that designates any number of mentions in Google Scholar to be "widely known/common" or not. Also I had pointed out that there's a 16x times difference between "Rurik" and the romanisations that he wishes to keep in the lead. And he himself pointed out to WP:ALTNAMES that says: "If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names" or "Etymology". Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first sentence.". He didn't create separate section and still despite me quoting all of these guidelines to him, he wants to keep all 4 versions of the name (and thats not including Church Slavonic and Norwegian version). 2. He removed my edits about Kingdom of Ruthenia with the reason and I quote "Tsardom of Russia is mentioned because the last Rurikid monarch was in that polity". Once I had mentioned that Vasili IV wasn't the last one and such approach would remove Tsardom of Russia from the lead, he went in full reverse and said "We can also mention other "important" states (including those that had their statuses elevated) and were not absorbed by Moscow at the time and not just that state to push a POV.". I had provided the reasons to include Kingdom of Ruthenia there, but he keeps insisting on claiming that I'm "pushing" that info. 3. He removed added information from Legacy section. To this moment he did not provide any reason (even in the comment for the edit) for that. 4. I was given 24 hour block. He waited 24 hours to bypass that limit on reverts and didn't wait for discussion to finish and instead undid current discussed version. Thats his 4th revert. Prior 3 times were done within 24 hours, which are violation of the 3RR rules. 5. Also he claims that there was a "consensus" but: a) I didn't remove any prior information (with the exception mentioned above that was moved to the "Legacy" section), b) added information does not change viewpoint on the subject, just expands it and c) There was no prior discussion about lead or that section. That hardly qualifies as "consensus".

In the end I want to point out that this user tries to intimidate other Wikipedia editors by posting "Introduction to contentious topics" message on their talk page. In August alone I accounted 10 such messages on users he had any sort of conflict with. And I'm not the first one to call him on that. That doesn't sound like he does discussions in good faith. Korwinski (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * OP was just blocked for violating 3RR and this report claims that my edit today was restoring a version from 29 August when it restored the pre-war version from days prior. Either way, this was not a violation of 3RR, this is just a revenge filing. They made a bold edit and then made 4 reverts on 29 August, for which they were blocked. On the talk page, their very first comment was accusing me of vandalism and threatening to submit a report on ANI if their edit was going to be reverted again. The whole time in the discussion they were ABF. Clearly they do not have an understanding of what consensus is and most of their edits involve edit-warring. See how many reverts they made on Russia (disambiguation) as an example (they do not have many other recent edits) and where they call anyone who reverts their edits a vandal. It is quite clear they have no interest in getting consensus for their edits and are trying to use brute force instead. Mellk (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also they decided to go further with their personal attacks and call me a "coward". Mellk (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My assumption was that admins would look into this issue with more detail, but i was wrong and thus need to report this separately. 3RR rules says: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.. You did 3 reverts and I had linked your edits above. Given you did not wait and finish the discussion and also violated a 3RR, I don't see any other way to reason with you. Especially since you're now using statements like "OP was just blocked for violating 3RR" to somehow make you right in this situation, while you clearly are guilty of the same thing and do not wish to continue discussion in good faith.
 * "On the talk page, their very first comment was accusing me of vandalism "
 * Reasons for accusations were provided. So far you did not provide Wikipedia guidelines that confirm your approach. Also you did not provide any valid reasons for removing information as well as the sources. Personal preferences are not valid reasons to do that.
 * "and threatening to submit a report on ANI if their edit was going to be reverted again."
 * You did the same thing in a form of a message on my Talk page.
 * "The whole time in the discussion they were ABF. Clearly they do not have an understanding of what consensus is and most of their edits involve edit-warring."
 * There was no prior discussion about neither lead nor "Legacy" sections. "Consensus" claim is not not true.
 * "See how many reverts they made on Russia (disambiguation) as an example"
 * If you check the discussion you will find out that admins on the topics discussed and approved one thing, but then the user in question waited a few weeks and undid all the consensus edits. But thank you for reminding me with that, I will look into that disambig later. But given that its not related to this discussion and it was 2 years ago, you are just trying to pull of demagogy.
 * "It is quite clear they have no interest in getting consensus for their edits and are trying to use brute force instead."
 * If that was true, I would have undid yours todays revert. But I didn't. Korwinski (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't make more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. I used the edit summary. I said on your talk page that violating 3RR might lead to a block and I suggested to you to self-revert (which you didn't), I didn't threaten to block you, as mentioned in the previous report. All in all, these are blatant falsehoods and in the article talk page, you still insisted you did not violate 3RR (but I did), so I think a longer block is needed, or an indefinite one. Mellk (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't see the links above or check history of Rurik page and count yourself. And I said that "I will consider". Yes, thats called intimidation. And report to admins is not a "threat". "you still insisted you did not violate 3RR". Please remind me, where did I say that?
 * "so I think a longer block is needed, or an indefinite one."
 * Thats a clear unjustified threat. None of my actions after block violate Wikipedia rules.Korwinski (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The blatant personal attacks you've been making also violate Wikipedia rules and are a blockworthy offense. The obviously retaliatory report to this noticeboard isn't helping, either. MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that thats a demagogy approach to the topic. Discussion here is not my or his attacks, but edits on Rurik page. He didn't state neither valid arguments to justify his arguments, nor did he point to Wikipedia guidelines that confirm his approach. In such case he resorts to claims about personal attacks. I had mentioned multiple ones above he did in regards to me, but also through "Introduction to contentious topics" messages. Like Rurik page at this very moment he has somewhat similar discussion on that page in "Anti-normanism". Its the very same thing. Korwinski (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you didn't like my answer, that is not an excuse to keep restoring your bold edit to the point of violating 3RR and making accusations of vandalism. Mellk (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not how noticeboards work, see WP:BOOMERANG. Doubling down on personal attacks after getting a warning about making personal attacks is a truly terrible idea. Keep this up and you are more likely to find yourself blocked again than gain successful retaliation against your perceived opponent. MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me a rule that says consideration of following Wikipedia rules is a personal attack? Because in case you can't, "personal attack" part of this discussion started with him claiming that it is. But I don't see you see you pointing that out to him neither in prior discussion, nor this one. Korwinski (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You should worry less about what other people might be doing wrong and focus on correcting your own violations of policy. MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, can you tell me why in the situation when both parties violated the policy you had decided to side with just one party? Lets assume I acknowledge everything and we can move past my own behaviour. What about the other opponent? You said and I quote: 'also violate Wikipedia rules'. Also means that you acknowledge that what other party is doing is wrong. Can we see the same approach towards that user now? Korwinski (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As I can see you're making new edits, so I guess I won't get an answer. Sorry, but since you can't express the same position about the same behaviour, I don't think your messages are productive. Especially given that previously you had already in passing admitted other users statements as such. And at this point I do consider them as personal and biased against me. Korwinski (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The obvious answer is that your behavior is not the same. As to also, don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about anyone else: your personal attacks also violate the rules, in addition to the edit warring you've already gotten a block for. Consider this my final reply on this page - but I'll look in on this dispute from time to time and if I see even one more personal attack from you I'll be sure to bring it up at ANI. MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You said after the block expired: I wasn't the one violating 3RR rule. Mellk (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

If you two don't stop eating up the scenary on this noticeboard an admin is likely to get fed up and hand out blocks to both of you. The report has been reviewed and declined; follow dispute resolution to sort your content issues.-- Ponyo bons mots 17:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. 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.
 * 3 reverts back then and 1 today. According to rules these are violations of 3RR. Can you specify on what grounds did you decide that its not a violation? I checked Exemptions and none of them match this situation. Korwinski (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Over two days is not "just outside the 24-hour period".--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * First 3 groups of reverts were made within 24 hours. And what over two days are you talking about? His 3rd revert was made on 23:12, 29 August 2023‎ and his 4th was made on 07:28, 31 August 2023. Time difference betweenn them is 32 hours and 16 minutes. Korwinski (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right about the number of hours between the first 3 reverts and the most recent one, my fault, but over one day is still too long to be considered gaming, and there must be at least 4 reverts to have a 3RR violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 32 hours and 16 minutes is way closer to 24 hours than 48 hours. Given that and time of the edits/reverts (very late night and early morning for Eastern Europe), I see no reason not to justify that as "just outside the 24-hour period" Korwinski (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're conflating two different periods. One is the 24-hour period during which 4 reverts must take place to constitute a 3RR violation, and the other is the period "just outside the 24-hour period". Nowhere does policy say that that period is 24-hours or has anything to do with 24 hours. That said, Aoidh has the right idea as to what to do now.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see in the rules there that we must consider them as "different periods"?
 * "Nowhere does policy say that that period is 24-hours or has anything to do with 24 hours. "
 * Yes. it does: 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. Korwinski (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I had just checked the rules again and they also say "whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". In case we count in part one, 4 reverts were made back then within a few hours one from another before I made 4th one myself: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Korwinski (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope I will get resolution at some point as I don't want to restart this whole process. I had already described two ways that we can account that in fact 4 reverts were made. And there are no rules that say that timeframe 32 hours doesn't meet "just outside the 24-hour period" policy. Korwinski (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest taking a look at WP:3O to get a third opinion on the talk page as a more productive way of resolving the dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I will. But current topic is a clear violation of 3RR that for some reason twice already was ignored. In case you're unsure, please invite 3rd party to review this as well. Korwinski (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What Eastern Europe? Again, you keep making assumptions like here about me when I told you already to stop. Mellk (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You seriously think that we can't see your edits in Russian wiki? Consider message above myself as I'm located in Eastern Europe. Korwinski (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You will find that Wikipedia has a very low tolerance for racist personal attacks. MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But the thing is, I never said that Eastern part of Europe statement was about him. And I had given there my local timestamps from Wiki history, not his. As thats what he had assumed, but I corrected him. Anyway, please educate me. Can you point me out in the direction and say when did assumption that one is from Eastern Europe has become considered a racism? Korwinski (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I rarely edit there and just because I made edits there, does not mean I am located in that country. Mellk (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For the sake of argument I said that we can see your edits in Russian wiki, not that you were from Eastern Europe. As you had assumed so, I said for you to assume that I was talking about myself given that I had given my own timestamps. Korwinski (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So why bring it up? The timestamps are in UTC. Mellk (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't say that I'm from Eastern Europe? Can you name me a rule that says that? Korwinski (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You mentioned my edits on a different project. Why bring it up? Mellk (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule that says that I can't mention that I can see your edits in Russian wiki? Korwinski (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked you why did you bring it up. This has nothing to do with "rules". Mellk (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Freedom of speech means that I can say whatever I want. In Wiki I'm only restricted by Wikipedia rules. Given that I broke no rules, I see no reason why I can't write whatever I observe on this platform. Korwinski (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note that no matter the result of this mediation, Talk:Rurik is till waiting for you. Please read my messages there, make up your mind up and also cut the "I also said we can mention those states, not that we should" approach. Korwinski (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you expect someone to continue "discussing" with you after all the comments you made. Request a third opinion instead. Sure, call me a "coward" again, but I really do not care. Mellk (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My comments? You started these comments and then proceeded in bad faith. And the problem is they won't have anything to review? New sources say that Vyshnevvetsky's are a Rurikids and I had provided one with free access from Polish academy of sciences. When I had asked you for the one that disproves that info, you refrained from doing so. Then so far you did not specify any reason why info from "Legacy" section was removed. And as for naming romanisations, rules state that we shouldn't clutter and in case of 4+ names, they should be moved to a footnote or designated section. So on what exactly do you wish to get their opinion on? Korwinski (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You know very well why I said that. You acted in bad faith and reverted these edits without finishing already open discussion. And also all that while I was blocked for 24 hours and couldn't defend my position or request a mediation. Korwinski (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like you are still attempting to justify personal attacks despite being warned a number of times here to not continue with personal attacks. I also made that edit and replied after your block expired, hoping that you would be willing to have a normal discussion, but this is what you decided to do. Mellk (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with that claim is that you're the one that started them accusing my consideration of following wiki guidelines that you had followed yourself a "personal attack". Not to mention the others.
 * Block was lifted at 04:15 AM UTC. You had started "normal discussion" at 07:28 AM with a revert. You seriously consider that a good start with a good faith? At least when I made my reverts I had written in detail my reasons. But at 07:40 AM you had posted your answer that does not only has zero specifics, but it does not answer any of my questions stated there before? Like you question my source based on what? Vyshnevetsky family was part of Poland's history and Polish academy of science is more than reputable source on this matter. Especially given that its based not on the assumption, but on the DNA tests. I had asked you for any source that disproves Rurikid DNA research or that publication. Where's that source? And the same goes for the rest. Korwinski (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are always right and never in the wrong, that's why you were unjustly blocked, and were right to accuse someone of vandalism and call them a coward, as you seem to think. Mellk (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said that I was unjustly blocked? You were angry about me making possible assumptions and writing personal attacks, but somehow you're the one making them now.
 * As for the rest, I had explained my reasons above. In case you didn't understand them in full, please read them again. I'm open to suggestions, but for some reason there are no suggestions. I ask for Wiki rules and you can't give them. I ask for a source and you don't provide it. How can I be at false in case you can't source your claims? That being said I won't continue this thread with you here. Please review talk page and answer my questions there. You had just shown that you're willing to discuss this topic with me here, so I see no reason why you can't discuss that topic there. Call it truce, review my edits and answer them as detailed as possible. Moreover, in case admins will decide to block you after all, I promise I won't make any reverts or edits on Rurik page until you're unblocked. You have my word. 15:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Korwinski (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I already linked this, I am not sure what is the point of saying otherwise? Either way, I will review the source you provided and respond there because this is the wrong place to discuss the content dispute. If you think my future responses will not adequately answer your concerns, then please follow the suggestion by the others and request a third opinion using WP:3O rather than continuing to revert. I really do not want to have a fight over it. Mellk (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right. I didn't phrase it correctly back then. I meant to say that you were the one to breach 3 reverts rule. In any case, if your keypoints will include sources and point to specific text in the rules, I won't have any problems with that. Korwinski (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, I do not see any difference now to this, and I think it will only continue. Mellk (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the comments there. They refrained from discussion and did not provide any sources. I asked them to open mediation and others didn't find my edits in violation with Wikipedia guidelines. Moreover, we touched Roman empire disambig. Admins had decided that full version should remain. Instead that user waited for a weeks and despite having consensus on the topic removed all the info that they had decided to keep. As the war had started I didn't have time to continue with that. I will get there eventually. Korwinski (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Geerestein3 reported by User:Scope creep (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This article has been reverted three times already. It had been reverted to a redirect before I reviewed it and came to the same conclusion, it is notable but the single database generated profile is insufficient to satisfy WP:V. 3 seperate editors have came to same conclusion.  scope_creep Talk  18:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple large edit summaries have been left explaining the position.
 * Editor has been notified.


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

User:2804:14D:CC81:4C2C:2D58:CDE9:E9C8:8DD3 reported by User:SamX (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Okay, I'm just going to stop editing and remove this  I just wanted to know do you agree that in the next few years, Pixar could release new original movies set for 2025 and 2026 that are all helmed by female directors like Turning Red?  it's because I'm in favor of a feminist, I only did June 2025 can direct Aphton Corbin, March 2026 can direct Kristen Lester and June 2026 can direct Rosana Sullivan"
 * 2)  "I'm not so sure he'll direct another original film, due to the failure of Onward he won't be able to direct another new film, Angus MacLane already left Pixar after Lightyear flopped at the box office  But I think 2025 and 2026 could have female director-led original movies, June 13, 2025 could have Apthon Corbin, March 6, 2026 could have Kristen Lester, and June 19, 2026 could have Rosana Sullivan, hoping that happens, I'm in favor of feminist"
 * 3)  "Don't get me wrong, I just want for the next few years, the new original films scheduled for 2025 and 2026 to be directed all by female directors."
 * 4)  "I disagree, I don't think he will direct another original animation, I'm just hoping in 2025 and 2026 the new original animations will be directed by women only  Jun 2025: Apthon Corbin Mar 2026: Kristen Lester Jun 2026: Rosana Sullivan"
 * 5)  "I'm not against this guy, I thought Onward is a good movie, but I'm hoping that in the next few years, the new Pixar original movies scheduled for 2025 and 2026 will be all female directors"
 * 6)  "I find it kind of difficult for him to direct a new original animation, it's because in the coming years of 2025 and 2026 it should be directed only by women who are Apthon Corbin, Rosana Sullivan and Kristen Lester  I'm waiting in 2025 and 2026, the new animations are directed all women like Turning Red"
 * 1)  "I disagree, I don't think he will direct another original animation, I'm just hoping in 2025 and 2026 the new original animations will be directed by women only  Jun 2025: Apthon Corbin Mar 2026: Kristen Lester Jun 2026: Rosana Sullivan"
 * 2)  "I'm not against this guy, I thought Onward is a good movie, but I'm hoping that in the next few years, the new Pixar original movies scheduled for 2025 and 2026 will be all female directors"
 * 3)  "I find it kind of difficult for him to direct a new original animation, it's because in the coming years of 2025 and 2026 it should be directed only by women who are Apthon Corbin, Rosana Sullivan and Kristen Lester  I'm waiting in 2025 and 2026, the new animations are directed all women like Turning Red"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Dan Scanlon."
 * 2)   "uw-nor1, some advice"

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd already blocked the /64 range based on a report at AIV. The same range has been blocked previously for the same WP:OR and disputed edits.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

User:120.29.79.39 reported by User:Lightoil (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1173158742 by Paper9oll (talk) Did not provide conclusive explanation on [|discussion] and still no reply on the talk page, restoring unjustified content removal"
 * 2)  "No reply on the talk page. Did not provide explanation, restoring unjustified content removal"
 * 3)  "Did you even read all what i just mentioned, ? Infobox should summarize the information in the article. You haven't provided any argument for why it's unnecessary other than saying it's unnecessary"
 * 4)  "Why its unnecessary? Infobox should summarize the information in the article, fyi Taylor Swift has that in her infobox"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected. Use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Göktuğ538538 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User:Göktuğ538538 continues to revert and not engage on the article talk page. I have responded to OrionNimrod on the article talk page with references to clear up the troop figures. I explicitly told Göktuğ538538 to take their concerns to the talk page and was told, "I don't have any concerns. I'm just saying what is written in the sources. If you are aware, I wrote "higher estimate". These are mentioned in the sources, even if modern estimates say 20,000, I write what is mentioned in the sources. See Resources". Thereby, ignoring the request to take the issue to the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Admins may want to look at the edit history of Siege of Krujë (1467), since it appears that users Göktuğ538538, Overvecht3301, and Keremmaarda are tag-team reverting. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

2018 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes (Result: Page protected)
Please take a look, there is an edit war. Wikisaurus (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

User:DamnOscar08 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1173445802 by M.Bitton (talk)Cope separatistst + Nobody supports W.s nowadays"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1173442347 by Manticore (talk) Re-adding because of removal"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1173438702 by M.Bitton (talk) Cope"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1173437809 by M.Bitton (talk)"

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

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

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Fdom5997 (Result: Nominator partially blocked 2 weeks)
this user constantly cancels the correct edits that are fixed by a good source in the article Bashkir language. he cements his position with a long-outdated and untrustworthy source Başqurd (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * from editing this specific article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Maskedsingerfan1938 reported by User:Happily888 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Masked Singer (Australian season 5)."
 * 2)   "Notification: adding content without providing reliable sources"
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Masked Singer (Australian season 5)."
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Masked Singer (Australian season 5)."
 * 5)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Masked Singer (Australian season 5)."

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Continued addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Addition of leaked information using unreliable sources */ new section"

Comments:

Continued vandalism of table in The Masked Singer (Australian season 5); edits contain only original research and when citations do occur, they only use self-published sources (such as mediaspy, fandom). Happily888 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

User:31.205.18.96 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You first reverted my edit (which indicated how there wasn't a consensus yet) without a consensus."
 * 2)  "My bad. I added the sources inside the texts. I've been giving my reasons in the summary boxes that were consistently ignored by edit warriors who clearly didnt want to discuss."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1173483192 by M.Bitton (talk)You provided no valid explanation for YOUR edit warring."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1173469793 by Rsk6400 (talk)YOU ar the one edit warring"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1172778499 by Rsk6400 (talk)Is edit warring simply something that you dont like?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See article history and IP talk page regarding edit warring  // Timothy :: talk  18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit warring continues, even after this report was opened. M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You started the edit warring without speaking consensus. I've given my sources for why the same wording with less authoritativeness used in other entries of the same article works here too. 31.205.18.96 (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * please see the note that was left by in the last report. M.Bitton (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * . Favonian (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Alaa kka reported by User:Bojo1498 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Correcting"
 * 2)  "It is literally a show about an Irish Catholic family, in Derry, in IRELAND (island). Stop calling it British. It doesn’t even make sense. It’s set in Ireland."
 * 1)  "Correcting"
 * 2)  "It is literally a show about an Irish Catholic family, in Derry, in IRELAND (island). Stop calling it British. It doesn’t even make sense. It’s set in Ireland."
 * 1)  "It is literally a show about an Irish Catholic family, in Derry, in IRELAND (island). Stop calling it British. It doesn’t even make sense. It’s set in Ireland."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is an existing comment on the page instructing editors to not change the nationality without reopening the discussion on the article talk page. bojo &#124; talk 16:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Uniru288 reported by User:Pedantic Aristotle (Result: Both 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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Please see discussion on Talk page.

Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Both Uniru and PA are at fault here. When Uniru objected to PAs edits, PA should have attempted to resolve the issue with discussion, rather than try to edit war their edit in. Looking at their edit histories, both Uniru and PA have exceeded the 3RR. On that basis, I would support blocking both editors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , Pedantic Aristotle for 24 hours and Uniru288 for 72 hours, since Uniru288 was blocked last month for edit warring at the same article. Both have gone over 3RR on the article. Aoidh (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)