Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive473

User:62.121.129.170 reported by User:64andtim (Result: Blocked as LTA)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1173678209 by Peaceray (talk) the article is not about the name of the body. it's about the body. you cannot rationally believe otherwise. evidently just enjoy edit warring"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1173669137 by Peaceray (talk) you obviously just want to revert for the sake of it. the article is about the body, not the name of the body, so this version is correct."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1173659727 by Peaceray (talk) not a valid reason for reverting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.4)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of phrase by 62.121.129.170 */ comment"

Comments:

Possible edit warring, and this IP restored their preferred version despite possibly violating WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD. signed, 64andtim  ( chat ) 21:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Noting that WP:BRD is an essay & not policy. However WP:EDITCONSENSUS & WP:EDITWAR are both policies, & both 64andtim & I have asked 62.121.129.170 to discuss the matter on the talk page with no response at this time. Peaceray (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How strange, that an unrelated third party would see an account reverting edits made by an IP, for no reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and report only the IP. 62.121.129.170 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * However, I did not revert any dispute edit(s) on the article Green Boots, and have told the editor not to revert further on said article. I think they started a discussion on the talk page. signed, 64andtim  ( chat ) 21:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a third opinion, however that editor may become involved. Peaceray (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * both Peaceray and the IP are are 3 reverts and are edit warring, and regarding WP:EDITCONSENSUS An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted, them removing the content disputes the presumed consensus. Being right is not an exception to edit warring, if the IP were to be blocked Peaceray would be blocked for having made the same number of reverts. I suggest you discuss the merits of the content on the talk page rather than giving a technical reason for why you believe a consensus already exists. The article has also been reported at WP:RFPP, but all involved parties should now use the talk page to resolve the dispute rather than continuing to revert each other; further edit warring will likely lead to blocks. Aoidh (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion at Talk:Green Boots before the discussion on this talk page, & 62.121.129.170, 64andtim, & I have all posted there. Peaceray (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per an SPI report the IP has been blocked for LTA block evasion. - Aoidh (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User:220.236.126.177 reported by User:PhinsUp23 (Result: Blocked 1 year)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

I suspect this user also used the 110.175.242.146 IP address, here are similar edits from a few weeks ago:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Some things to note:

- This IP user has previously been banned for 3 months, and 2 weeks before that, for edit warring on this page (and probably based on their activity on others as well, notably the List of Manly Warringah Sea Eagles records page. They received their 3 month ban pretty much immediately after their 2 week ban ended for continuing to edit war rather than attempt good faith discussion, as their opinion was not supported by any relevant sources.

- There are two points of contention currently, both in one table on the article. One is to do with the name of a team, which I believe should remain consistent with the other entries in the table as the most recent name but the person being reported wants all 3 names to be included. The diff I posted of the article talk page was what I posted in response to another ip address, which I now suspect is the same person, changing the tables. I have provided my point, but nobody has responded to it, showing that others likely view it as a non-issue while this user is unwilling to discuss it seriously. The other point of contention is over the win percentages in the same table. I have not made a talk page entry about this mainly due to this user not engaging with my talk page point about the other issue. The percentages are also much more cut and dry; the team name dispute is a question of article style, percentages are based on simple maths. In the event that this user does not know how to calculate percentages and round them to 2 decimal places I included links to articles on rounding when I reverted their incorrect numbers, but they have refused to address the issue based on the maths and instead resort to a tired "you're making this an issue" argument. Since they don't engage seriously with the article talk page, I also tried to get them to discuss the maths on their talk page several months ago, which can be seen by going through its history, but they refused to engage with that and just deleted my comments. I suspect they will also delete my notice of this report.

- As I mentioned a few times already, I suspect that this user has also been ban evading. I am making this report about their main IP, but while it was banned the 110.175.242.146 IP has been active on the same pages (NRL records, Manly records, etc), makes the same disputed changes, and makes similar comments in their edit summaries like accusing others of vandalism for no reason. A look at this other IP's block log shows that it was previously banned for being used to ban evade by a now indefinitely blocked account called CodyCruickshank, whose edits back in 2017 were also largely focused around the NRL and Manly records articles.

PhinsUp23 (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * PhinsUp23, thanks for the report. If I may nitpick, bans and blocks are not the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Subverzo reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

For Himarë: diff

For Sarandë: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

For Himarë:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

For Sarandë:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User:82.78.75.27 reported by User:Ryan (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to Chevrolet Spark"
 * 2)  "←Removed redirect to Chevrolet Spark"
 * 3)  "←Removed redirect to Chevrolet Spark"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be pasting content which is incomplete and possibly machine translated from another language. User has not responded to warnings. ~Ryan (Talk | Contributions) 18:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User:MarcosLeandro2 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Partially blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"
 * 2)  "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"
 * 3)  "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"
 * 4)  "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"
 * 5)  "←Removed redirect to List of El Chavo del Ocho characters"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

On user talk page.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

On user talk page. Comments:

Going against AfD decision. Started as IP, continuing as this user. See edit history of page in question. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * by User:Discospinster. Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User:SuperSuperSonic207 reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitbull_(rapper)&diff=prev&oldid=1173826660

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitbull_(rapper)&diff=prev&oldid=1173819875
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitbull_(rapper)&diff=prev&oldid=1173691240
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitbull_(rapper)&diff=prev&oldid=1172829128

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuperSuperSonic207#Edit_warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuperSuperSonic207#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:

This user has been edit warring on Pitbull over a change in wording to the first sentence, where they are repeatedly trying to change "known professionally as" to "better known by his stage name". They have been reverted by several editors over this. It should be pointed out that they are not just edit warring on this page, but edit warring across a number of pages currently, such as Cocaine Bear and Doja Cat. They have also used threatening edit summaries such as "Leave it.", and have left an all-caps paragraph on my talk page including "WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET IT.". Other editors have also received similar comments such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CAMERAwMUSTACHE#Megan_Thee_Stallion and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MikeAllen#Explaing_Wikipedia_guidelines_before_editing.

SuperSuperSonic207 is also an alt account of User:2601:196:4a01:d770:80b1:e397:44d7:c8, as evidenced by this diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjones23&diff=prev&oldid=1170012849

and this one too https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trippie_Redd&diff=prev&oldid=1170038681

GraziePrego (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that the user has already been blocked twice as Special:Contributions/2601:196:4A01:D770:0:0:0:0/64. The connection between the IP range and the username is obvious in these two edits. So if a block is considered for this recent behavior, it should build upon the previous one-month block. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * as NOTHERE, also competence issues as evidenced by their imperfect English. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:TrangaBellam reported by User:Jagmanst (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I didn't revert 3 times, to lead to 3RR situation. I did create a edit war comment on talk page, before their final revert:

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

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

Comments:

Jagmanst (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was generally stable till 2nd of September.
 * TB reverted the article to version from 2nd of August.
 * They keep undoing around 70 edits by multiple editors, including myself over a month, to this version.
 * When challenged, they referred to some changes they did not like on the talk page
 * Most of these edits they didn't like to were done in early August (from August 4th onwards) before my many edits that have been reverted (starting August 13).
 * Since these edits have remained in the page for up to a month after multiple revisions, there is a presumed consensus for them by WP: SILENCE. WP: ONUS is on TB to justify whatever content they think is important to insert, not to undo a lot of work by many editors.
 * It is wrong to allow one user to bulldoze an months worth of edits.


 * TB claims they reinsterted some of my edits. Most of my edits however are not reinserted. Jagmanst (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , seeking a third opinion or starting an RfC is not an option for you? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look into those options. I am awestruck at the level of disruption they have caused, and how they keep undoing many constructive edits to force their old version, that I followed WP:EW to post it here. I also note from their contributions page, they frequently engage in similar aggressive reverts. Do you condone this behaviour? Jagmanst (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If there is a general issue with 's behavior beyond the article about Sengol, you may like to start a discussion at WP:ANI with evidence in form of diffs. I'll focus on this report and this article.
 * The policy section WP:ONUS is about the addition of content when verifiability (there, "WP:BURDEN") is not an issue. It describes that even if something is verifiable, it does not automatically have to be included, and a consensus is still required for inclusion. Looking at your mention of "WP:ONUS" and Special:Diff/1173716364, I'm afraid you're both missing the point of the policy section and are misusing it to justify unrelated actions.
 * Regarding "silence", you have linked to an essay; the relevant section of the actual consensus policy is WP:EDITCON, which explains: "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." Well, it has been reverted. There is no presumed consensus about this matter anymore; please don't refer to it as if it still exists.
 * I'm happy to read that taking actual steps to resolve the situation is now being "looked into". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TB's point was the old version is the consensus version and I or others will have to justify the 70 odd edits that happened over the months. Whereas my point is the version of 2nd September is the consensus version and they need to justify their revert to the old page. The question is who needs to justify their revision. I will bring the matter to a RfC when I get the time. Jagmanst (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

User:021120x reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

They have been asked to take this to talk, as there are a number of issues with their text that can't be addressed in edit summaries (not least of which is the failure of wp:v). Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Now they have decided to take it to talk. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There are only two reversions by 021120x, compared to three for Slatersteven. It should be noted that neither Slatersteven nor Wee Curry Monster have made any effort to bring the changes to the Talk page before reverting them or escalating the discussion to this notice board.021120x (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You reverted 4x.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. In the first edit in the sequence] 021120x adds some information which is immediately removed as unsourced. Forty minutes later he comes back and adds a source, quoting generously enough from it in the cite as to make it seem pretty clear that this was a good-faith edit. I really don't think we should count a good-faith edit here that was intended to comply with sourcing policy as a revert for the purposes of 3RR (the next two, restoring it, are of course a different matter, but they have not exceeded three yet. Yes, we can say that stronger historical consensus would be needed for this allegation, like more sources, but this did not start over someone's attempt to prevail in a content dispute through sheer force of will. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're being overly generous there, the source doesn't verify the claim made, not even remotely close. And the editor 021120x makes a personal attack on my first revert  calling my revert dishonest.  This also isn't their first rodeo, they were blocked for a week for POV-pushing, personal attacks, ownership of articles, and battleground behavior.  Plus an editor whose been around 3 years knows 3RR and WP:BRD.  I have a feeling this will end it tears.  WCM email 06:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Ooodjr reported by User:Aza24 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Editor has not achieved consensus on the talk page (only two other participants, both of whom disagree with the editor in question, not including myself, who also disagrees) yet refuses to back down or allow discussion to continue while the status quo map in question remains. Repeatedly includes unnecessary inflammatory language "lmao" "say the same thing to your daddy, pls" etc. Clearly some admin action is needed here in some capacity  Aza24  (talk)   06:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Other people have already warned me about unnecessary profanity, and I plan to be more careful in the future.
 * I don't care if I get punished, but I want you to know that I'm not just fighting, but that I've changed sources many times in response to the other party's requests.
 * Despite such efforts, it is still stubbornly rejected. In contrast, none of the questions I raised have been meaningfully answered. Ooodjr (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Tang dynasty Ooodjr (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @PericlesofAthens has declared himself to be "neutral", why do you say "they are both against"?
 * sorry for my bad english Ooodjr (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Aoidh (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

User:185.119.90.12 reported by User:Augusti Maggori (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

In the Spanish Empire article:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

In the Anglo-Spanish article:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:

IP whose contributions are almost limited to systematically reverting without giving any explanation. Often deleting content with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augusti Maggori (talk • contribs) 21:41, September 5, 2023 (UTC)
 * IP for 24 hours by myself, Augusti Maggori for 48 hours by User:Drmies. Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Drmies, Aoidh, as noticed by User:Eastfarthingan, there is sockpuppetry going on here to evade blocks. Not just this temporary block however. User:Augusti Maggori and User:Giralda.Avenida are obvious socks of User:JamesOredan, a permanently blocked user for poisoning wikipedia with dozens and dozens of socks with a Spanish chauvinistic and suprematist agenda.(latest blocked user was User:Venezia Friulano) A few examples:


 * -This edit by AugustaMaggiori (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1174026251) has the same argumentation and content of this edit by Giralda.Avenida here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1174110260).


 * -This edit ((https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1173636536) by Giralda.Avenida has same content of this edit by Venezia Friulano here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1159950588). His other edits on the Spain article concerning the geography of Spain follow what Venezia asked for in the Talk:Spain article (see the section in which Venezia intervened).


 * -These accounts were created right after the block of Venezia; they have the same interests, edit same articles and push the same agenda of all the socks of James Oredan; they tend to cause edit wars, personal attacks, and then they accuse others of doing what they are doing in a gaslighting habit proper of the latest socks such as Venezia.
 * Barjimoa (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Barjimoa, thanks., I think you are the last one to block a bunch of socks, and maybe you have thoughts. In the meantime, I am going to block these two accounts, but I am doing that with behavioral evidence. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Cristiano Tomás (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "both I and Magnolia677 have reverted your initial reversion; you do not have a consensus to continue reverting; I have made my case on the talk, go ahead and make yours and let's see what the community decides! But if you revert again you will violate the 3 revert rule"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Cristiano Tomás has characterized this sequence of my edits as a fourth reversion when it was actually a continuation of me working on the article to develop and improve it with book cites. Looking at the page history, there must have been an edit conflict. Note that I was the one who started the talk page discussion to dispute the major topic shift undertaken unilaterally by Cristiano Tomás. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your "continuation" reverted the infobox added, images added, and new intro added; all of which are all at the heart of this debate. Also, 3RR states that "edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." And there is nothing wrong by making WP:Bold edits in the first place, apart from the fact they have been defended by another user. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Օֆելյա Հակոբյան reported by User:NMW03 (Result: partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1174272621 by NMW03 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1163388936 by NMW03 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Extended-confirmed required */ new topic"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This non-EC user keeps making edits to article(s) under WP:GS/AA after being warned NMW03 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Օֆելյա Հակոբյան, word to the wise: stop it right now. Your unexplained removals are quite disruptive. If you have an argument, take it to the talk page. If you don't--well. Either way, stop edit warring or you will get blocked. Drmies (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that you keep falsifying the information, Hatsi village is in Armenia and Armenian village, my statement is confirmed by references. Մակար եպիսկոպոս Բարխուդարյանց, Արցախ. «Ամարաս» տպարան - Երևան 1996, էջ 83-84; Հակոբ Ղահրամանյան, ՏԵՂԵԿԱՏՈւ Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետության վարչատարածքային միավորների սոցիալ-տնտեսական բնութագրերի, Երևան, Ճարտարագետ, 2015 թ.; Մելքումյան Սերգեյ (1990)։ Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ։ Երևան: Լույս։ էջեր 243–245։ ISBN 5-545-00522-6. If you keep writing false and untrustworthy statements you will be blocked. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Believe me, you are mistaken. Make your case on the talk page, not here. Given that lack of understanding, I am going to block you from editing the article directly. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Drmies, please don't forget that she can't edit these articles because there is extended-confirmed restriction: WP:GS/AA NMW03 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * NMW03, I don't understand. You reported them for edit warring on an article you say they can't edit? Do you mean that in a dynamic or a deontic sense? Drmies (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant "shouldn't be" editing. That article is about a village in active conflict zone between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a topic that is under ECP. They should not be editing in this topic at all. I had given them a notice about it, but they ignored NMW03 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, User:Օֆելյա Հակոբյան, there you go--you shouldn't have been editing this article, and others that fall under WP:GS/AA. If you do, and certainly if you continue edit warring, you might find yourself sanctioned more severely than just with a partial block from one article. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

UserChatterleybuns958 reported by wolf (Result: both get partial blocks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (@17:13, 7 September 2023)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (@11:50, 7 September 2023)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (final warning re: wp:or)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has a history if persistenly adding unsourced content and has received numerous warnings, including a final warning and note that their behavour was heading towards a likely block. Within the same 24 hours of this notice, they've pivoted to adding questionable sources (example) and are now edit warring to push they're preferred content in, using edit summaries in place of a talk page. This page was just created by who appears to be at their wit's end dealing with this (as seen here basically begging for assistance). - w o lf  18:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I find that article history difficult to peruse. It would be better if both editors were blocked from the article and sought the talk page. Espngeek did, but their talk page contribution is not very positive. The real problem of course is the vagueness of the definition of the article topic, and the absolute triteness of the whole thing. Destroy the article, that's progress. Editors, see the talk page and discuss individual entries, in a calm manner and producing reliable sources--if you can. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The shows he tried to put are as follows:
 * Total Request Live
 * Kiff
 * Behind the Music
 * Corn & Peg
 * I Love the...
 * Pistol (miniseries)
 * MTV Cribs
 * I'm With Her
 * Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County
 * Rake
 * Dietland
 * Tell Me Lies
 * Espngeek (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

User:David O. Johnson reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

1st edit user reverted from:
 * Diffs of the user's 1st revert:
 * 

2st edit user reverted from:
 * Diffs of the user's 2nd revert:
 * 

3rd edit user reverted from:
 * Diffs of the user's 3rd revert:
 * 

4th edit user reverted from:
 * Diffs of the user's 4th revert:
 * 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The users edit warring mostly involves them disagreeing with me adding in an additional citation in different sections of the article. It is clear from edit summaries that they have a preference for exactly one citation only for each factual claim. Three of their reverts have been removing additional citations, all of which were from WP:RS. I left the notice of edit warring on their talk page three hours ago and their contributions show that they last edited an hour ago. Clearly they do not take my warning about edit warring and their need to self-revert seriously. TarnishedPathtalk 02:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: According to the user's contributions they edited 36 minutes ago, meaning that they would have ignored notice I left on their talk page of this discussion and not self-reverted. Clearly they couldn't care less. TarnishedPathtalk 04:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The fourth revert you listed above is not a revert but a link to the revision history of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll grab it for you in a second. Sorry. TarnishedPathtalk 13:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 corrected. My apologies. Lack of sleep last night. TarnishedPathtalk 13:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

User:AgntOtrth reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Full protection for three days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1173536226 by FormalDude (talk) The refernce is not a talk show, it is not science, it is not politics,  the source is prohibited from being used in the specific context."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1173442583 by FormalDude (talk) Restoring background information"
 * 3)  "/* Background and incident */  This is not a political issue. It is not a science issue. As it is neither political or scientific, it is a reliable source; please see the reliable source list."
 * 4)  "The video linked IS the video that has been in the article for many days. A secondary source is not required for the specific purpose as used."
 * 1)  "The video linked IS the video that has been in the article for many days. A secondary source is not required for the specific purpose as used."

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

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

Comments: in full for three days since the two of you have been the only ones editing (by which I mean edit-warring) for the last three days. I grant that the weight of fault is heavier on Agnt because a review of their talk page shows a history, particularly on Killing of Tyre Nichols, that speaks to a pattern of increasingly tendentious editing. And objectively Dude is on the right side of policy it seems to me. But for purposes of enforcing WP:EW, right, save for some very narrowly defined exceptions, doesn’t matter. Besides, Dude’s talk page shows that he has also rubbed people the wrong way at times. If I blocked Agnt I’d have to block Dude too. So, instead, I have full-protected the page for three days in the hope that the talk page discussion can play out such that Agnt comes to understand the issues with their edits without deciding to further edit war. I have also a) designated the article as coming within a contentious topic area, in this case AP2, via the usual notice on the talk page. I have b) further advised Agnt about CTOPS, something I am surprised had not previously been done given all the drama they caused at the Tyre Nichols article. I will not be logging this protection as a CTOPS action, despite having had to semi-protect this article a couple of weeks ago, but it is clear from the frequent requests for said protection at RFPP before and since that from the standpoint of the article at least, CTOPS designation was a long time coming. So I warn Agnt that, if they resume edit warring once this protection ends, I will log any sanction I take as a CTOPS action, since you have now been properly advised, and suggest any other admin take the same step. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a baffling response. AgntOtrth has been a plague on this article, edit warring in the past, constantly condescending to other editors, introducing BLP violations, and generally acting like they OWN the page. When I make simple corrections they leave paragraphs on my talk page accusing me of assuming bad faith. They show a blatant lack of understanding of numerous fundamental policies. And how exactly does "Besides, Dude’s talk page shows that he has also rubbed people the wrong way at times." have any pertinence to this issue?
 * I have no interest in repeatedly explaining things to Agnt until they "come to understand the issues with their edits". I don't believe that is a possible outcome given the multiple talk page comments clarifying policies to them that they refuse to accept. Feel free to remove the page protection because I'm not gonna be editing there while Agnt still has access. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  03:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have “no interest” in repeatedly explaining things to him, then fine, but that still doesn’t make edit warring right. You are basically saying I should have blocked both of you, and demonstrating the pertinence of what I saw on your talk page.
 * Actually, you are making me rethink this. How does blocking both of you from the article for a week or so sound, instead of the protection? Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds punitive as I've already said I'm not going to edit the page further. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  06:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So you would be fine with being blocked from the page indefinitely, then? To make sure you keep the promise and aren't tempted? Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't be fine with it because it would be a grossly negligent sanction and I don't want a block on my record. I have the capability of walking away, unlike you apparently. Aren't admins supposed to be able to handle criticism of their actions without resorting to threats? –– Formal Dude  (talk)  06:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the same way that editors are supposed to avoid edit warring most of the time. I am sorry for interpreting your report here as a good-faith attempt to minimize damage to the encyclopedia, not as the attempt to get Agnt blocked in retaliation for getting on your nerves that it is now abundantly clear that it always was.
 * Foe me, AGF means you file these reports with a willingness to accept the possibility of an outcome other than what you may have been be hoping for. We do not call these pages “Requests for Blocks”, after all.
 * I deduced, correctly I know now, that you would not take well to being blocked, even partially. This article is hardly your only contribution to the project; I did not want to stop you in the interim from doing quality work on the other articles you work on. So I endeavored to avoid that outcome while ending the edit war. Apparently (as I’ve also been advised on my talk page) that was the less preferable option. I notice, however, that except for your edits here you haven’t been editing much since the protection … although Labor Day weekend probably explains that better than any penitence would (And neither has Agnt, who at least has not contested this decision).
 * I am not changing my action; it’s really too late to. But I will tell you that this confrontational attitude of yours is, although not yet as tendentious as Agnt’s, is going to get you blocked by some other admin someday, and there will be less argument about it. Whether that actually comes to pass is up to you.
 * I will have no more to say about this except to say that your decision to step back from editing the article ought to be treated as a self-imposed topic ban to be taken into account should you edit the article again at some point in the future and conflict with other editors. I would also ask that maybe you consider a self-imposed interaction ban from Agnt as it seems to me to be possible that the two of you might collide on another article in the future (and yes, I will make the same suggestion to him). Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Minimizing damage to the encyclopedia would have looked like preventing Agnt from accessing the page as they violated 3RR, personalized the dispute immediately, and refused to accept policy-based changes that were thoroughly explained to them. I haven't done any of those things. I know I should have tried to explain things to them a little sooner, but that is no reason to act like my actions are even comparably problematic to Agnt's. You can't list anything else I could've done better in this dispute, much less anything I explicitly did wrong. It is clear that the main thing you're upset with is that I didn't lay down and accept your decision without a peep. And of course Agnt isn't contesting your decision, you fully protected the page with their preferred version.
 * I'm not considering any self-imposed Tban or Iban, the only reason I'm walking away is because you failed to handle this and I personally do not wish to continue interacting with Agnt at that article. If I see them somewhere else (unlikely given their less than 400 edits across mainly two articles), so be it, I don't carry grudges over disputes, and will treat them the same as any other editor.
 * And maybe my editing is slowed because I'm upset that when I reported a disruptive editor, instead of having it resolved properly, I got met with your bothsidesism and block threats. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * you fully protected the page with their preferred version. See here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Jumping in here as a completely uninvolved editor: while the BLP exception on edit warring does say not to rely on it, I do think that this is clearly covered by it and so FormalDude, by the letter of policy, did nothing wrong. From the history, FormalDude appears to be removing poorly sourced information about a living person. Loki (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue’s moot now, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your response to FormalDude is bad, separate from the BLP exception issue. Of course someone who comes to the edit warring board is here because they think someone else is edit warring. That is not unique to FormalDude. I don't know why you have a particular bee up your bonnet about him. Loki (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. Yes, editors report what they perceive to be misconduct here. That does not entitle them to a particular resolution of that report. Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly not, however you are clearly judging the case here based on the fact that FormalDude appears to have expected a certain result, when everyone who brings something to this board is expecting a certain result.
 * E.g: I am sorry for interpreting your report here as a good-faith attempt to minimize damage to the encyclopedia, not as the attempt to get Agnt blocked in retaliation for getting on your nerves that it is now abundantly clear that it always was. Those things are not mutually exclusive! Of course it is both an attempt to get someone the reporter feels is edit-warring blocked and a good-faith attempt to minimize damage to the encyclopedia! As every other report on this page is! Loki (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Expecting a result does not entitle a user to it. Sometimes reports here have been resolved without administrative action when the two parties got to talking as they really should have done before the report. Other times we decline them as having gone stale or being too old for a block to have made a difference. And still other times the edits have not constituted a violation.
 * People have been upset with resolutions of these reports before—that’s life; you won’t please everyone. But usually they at least have accepted them as within administrative discretion, rather than throwing their toys out of the carriage and pledging to never edit the article again. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Really, you're gonna use personal attacks now? Walking away is not "throwing toys out of the carriage".
 * And I did not pledge to never edit the article again. I have decided to stop editing there indefinitely, i.e. for an unspecified amount of time. Nothing else–no promise, no commitment. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  02:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That pledge did not seem to stop you from filing an appeal with ArbCom over which contentious topic area the article should have been classified under, a decision they almost immediately said wasn't an enforcement action and thus not appealable to them, and then two other Arbs added that even if it were, I was right. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It didn't stop me because 1) it's not a pledge and 2) I didn't have to edit the article or its talk page to submit it.
 * I'm sorry you don't like your actions being reviewed for accountability (or any feedback on your actions at all, as we've seen here), but that's part of the job. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, certainly expecting a result does not entitle a user to it, but neither should it be used as evidence against the user reporting the behavior.
 * I think you are taking this whole situation a lot worse than FormalDude did. You are responding to a mild challenge to your decision here as if it was some sort of attack on your honor. Loki (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "I think you are taking this whole situation a lot worse than FormalDude did." After reading his responses above, I would consider that argument to be at least debatable.
 * All I would ask is that he accept in good faith that I had reasons for taking my decision to protect the article rather than block him and AgntOTrth from it (or sitewide) I didn't think that was the best thing for the project.
 * Really, I have never seen anyone protest so hard against not getting blocked. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I accept your decision was made in good faith, I have never said anything to suggest otherwise, but that does not mean it was a good or appropriate decision. Honestly, if you think your only options were full protection or dual blocks, you should not be patrolling here. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  05:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

User:WayKurat reported by User:Hotwiki (Result: Blocked 24 hours, filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

This issue goes way back to March 2023 when User:WayKurat decided to resurrect deleted content from year 2020. Claiming those deleted content were removed for no reason which is not true. They were removed because they were unreferenced, trivial and not encyclopedic. He claimed that he is finding sources and therefore I shouldn't remove unreferenced content and make any changes into the section of that article. Every single edit that I made recently in the section of the article were reverted by User:WayKurat and he is claiming I am edit warring for editing the article for making some changes in the article. TheHotwiki (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in my edit comment on that article, I will find sources for the removed content, but Hotwiki resorted to remove all of the content again as I am adding sources just because "24 hours has passed" since I restored the content without adding references. Immediately, I reverted back the edits, telling him that I'm in the process of adding the sources, but he keep on removing the content. I already told him that a more diplomatic approach in dealing with unsourced content is to add the "citation needed" tag. But instead, he reported me here in ANI for edit warring, while in the first place, he is the one that triggered the edit war. Again, I'm adding the sources I have found while he removed the content, resulting to an edit conflict.
 * Please note that Hotwiki has been reported here in ANI multiple times for edit warring; most recently with this encounter with User:FrostFleece. -WayKurat (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That issue was resolved and I no longer had any issues with User:FrostFleece as we both interacted well in other articles. That reporting incident in ANI in March 2023, was when User:WayKurat used the opportunity to resurrect deleted unreferenced/trivial content (from 2020) back into the Saksi article last March 2023. TheHotwiki (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * . please be warned that stopping just shy of 3RR and then reporting another editor for making 1 more revert than you can also be edit warring, especially when the dispute hasn't been discussed; when a dispute gets to that point, use the article's talk page. The Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page section of the report should not be blank. Aoidh (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. I will use the talk page of the article, first should another issue arises. TheHotwiki (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1001:B04E:EE66:A5DD:3C9C:E55:B63A reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Knight&oldid=1170619217

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: Attempted resolution through edit summaries and user talk page, received no response.

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

Comments:

This user is has attempted to add a spouse to this page on many occasions now, and they have never once provided a source. They also refuse to respond to any talk page messages or edit summary comments. They are far beyond 3 reverts too. GraziePrego (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * for persistently edit warring to add unsourced personal information to a BLP article. Aoidh (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Patriot2020 reported by User:Bojo1498 (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early life */Added birth name"
 * 2)  "/* Early life */Fixed birth name, incorrect ethnicity"
 * 3)  "/* Early life */Added Justina Valentine’s birth name"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All edits have been trying to add unsourced BLP information (bojo)  (they/them)  (talk)  05:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I went to school with her DICK, her dads name is Michael Cetinich, her sister is Christine Cetinich. It’s false that this page displays her stage name as her birth name https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10204484738591592&id=1626123130&mibextid=GC6XAW here’s her singing with her dad Michael Cetinich you POS Patriot2020 (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked, for this and the personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

User:FightinMisnformation1982 reported by User:2601:19e:4180:6d50:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63 (Result: p-blocked from article for one week)
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:

FightinMisnformation1982 has persistently removed sourced content and replaced it with poorly sourced content, reverting multiple users. Through edit summaries, talk page warnings and article discussion, they've been informed of the issues of edit warring and proper sourcing, to little avail. Claims to wish to reach consensus on talk page ring empty, given the refusal to self-revert or make any substantive acknowledgments of policy. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * IP, thanks. I blocked them from the article for a week, and I am looking to see if further measures are warranted. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Epwikieditor reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: No violation, should go to AN/I)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Previous editor insists on reverting to inaccurate versions with false facts. Correcting for accuracy. Undid revision 1174682629 by Bbb23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "BBB23 is behaving like an egotistical, unprofessional troll who insists on reverting to versions with factual errors. See Talk for details. Undid revision 1174674008 by Bbb23 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Minor stylistic changes."
 * 4)  "Correct typographic error."
 * 5)  "To BBB23: The most recent edits to Dr. Perez's page have been made by Dr. Perez's family, on the occasion of his recent passing. Respectfully, I am undoing your removal of my most recent edits because I respectfully disagree that the updated edits are "not constructive." There are numerous changes that correct previous errors, add context, and correct broken hyperlinks. Please do not revert. Undid revision 1174654310 by Bbb23 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Fixed typographic error in name of ASTRO organization."
 * 7)  "Moved external websites from hyperlinks in body to "External Links," at bottom of page."
 * 8)  "Correction to Radiation Oncology departmental status"
 * 9)  "Corrected place of birth, from Medellin to Pereira, Colombia; updated information regarding publications; clarified biographical information and department status at MIR from 1976 to 2001; added detail regarding professional awards; added numerous supporting hyperlinks."
 * 10)  "Corrected broken hyperlink for Academy of Science in St. Louis."
 * 11)  "Corrected broken hyperlink for TomoTherapy reference."
 * 12)  "Corrected broken hyperlink for TomoTherapy reference."
 * 13)  "/* External links */"
 * 14)  "Corrected hyperlink for M.D. Anderson Cancer Center."
 * 1)  "Corrected broken hyperlink for TomoTherapy reference."
 * 2)  "Corrected broken hyperlink for TomoTherapy reference."
 * 3)  "/* External links */"
 * 4)  "Corrected hyperlink for M.D. Anderson Cancer Center."
 * 1)  "Corrected hyperlink for M.D. Anderson Cancer Center."
 * 1)  "Corrected hyperlink for M.D. Anderson Cancer Center."
 * 1)  "Corrected hyperlink for M.D. Anderson Cancer Center."
 * 1)  "Corrected hyperlink for M.D. Anderson Cancer Center."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Carlos Pérez (radiation oncologist)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is a member of the Perez family. I have left a WP:COI on their Talk page. I have warned them for their disruptive edits, which are replete with promotion and significant stylistic errors. They have not only insisted on reinstating their poor edits but have attacked me in an edit summaries (I'm apparently a troll) and declared their intention to continue reverting ("I will not rest"). I have reverted 3x, which, tbh, is one more than I prefer to do. I am also obviously WP:INVOLVED. Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Administrator should provide examples of "disruptive edits" which he claims, without substantiation, are "replete with promotion" and contain "significant stylistic errors."
 * Administrator have never provided a single example or reference on which such claims are based.
 * If administrator provides examples and explanation of content believed to be problematic or "promotional", we can have a civil conversation and try to agree on modifications. Instead, the administrator is simply reverting to factually inaccurate articles without explanation. Epwikieditor (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There have been only three reverts so far.But everything else is a problem: civility, POV, COI, sourcing or the lack thereof. This really should be discussed at AN/I; it’s outside the scope of this page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Pirate of the High Seas reported by User:Thewikizoomer (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Same goes for you. take it to the talkpage for consensus"
 * 2)  "restoring mass content removal without consensus"
 * 3)  "disputed by whom?"
 * 4)  "/* Preparations */"
 * 5)  "moved Background section"
 * 6)  "moved to Preparations"
 * 1)  "moved Background section"
 * 2)  "moved to Preparations"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2023 G20 New Delhi summit."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on 2023 G20 New Delhi summit."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user (Pirate of the High Seas) has added non-neutral material to this article. A user later (Shaan Sengupta) has reverted and disputed with this edit. This user (Pirate of the High Seas) is resorting to edit warring. Requesting administrators direction. Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Not vandalism. Edit warring between @Shaan Sengupta and @Pirate of the High Seas Thewikizoomer (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Admins, please note that User:Thewikizoomer is involved in removal of sourced content, edit warring and helping his pal User:Shaan Sengupta evade 3RR by tag-teaming.
 * See:
 * (1) 15:34, 9 September 2023,
 * (2) 12:44, 10 September 2023
 * (3) 12:57, 10 September 2023 Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pirate of the High Seas, @Thewikizoomer has reported me here. So how is he my pal. I am first time interacting with him here. Be a little professional with your reports. Don't make baseless claims.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 14:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thewikizoomer Editwarring is when someone does 3RR. I have reverted only once. The first one was a content removal with cleanup not a revert. Even if we take that into account its still two. So it doesn't come under Editwarring. I left that thing after I got a clue that this is going to be disputed. Its @you who has reverted twice or thrice consecutively. Besides @Pirate of the High Seas there are multiple users who want that content removed but only you who wants it there.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 14:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not report you @Shaan Sengupta, just mentioned that @Pirate of the High SeasPirate of the High Seas and you were involved in an incident. and yeah, @Shaan Sengupta not my pal @Pirate of the High Seas Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thewikizoomer you clearly said edit warring between me and @Pirate of the High Seas. Since you have not reported me then please struck it to take it back.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 14:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pirate of the High Seas resorted to warring and your involvement of correcting that was mentioned. You are not reported. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Understand that mentioning your username name doesn't equal to reporting. further administrators will anyways understand it when they have a look at the developments Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no point in prefixing user names with "@" unless you're directly addressing the person, and even then it has no technical meaning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have extended-confirmed protected the page because of generally noticeable disruption not limited to 's reverts. As isn't extended-confirmed, they can't edit the page anymore and the report lost its necessity. Closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Shaan Sengupta reported by User:Pirate of the High Seas (Result: Declined for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 08:57, 9 September 2023
 * 2) 16:07, 9 September 2023
 * 3) 22:12, 9 September 2023
 * 4) 06:13, 10 September 2023
 * 5) 10:58, 10 September 2023
 * 6) 12:31, 10 September 2023 (misuse of Twinkle)

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

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

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

Comments:

There's a possible 3RR violation and edit warring in a deliberate attempt at censoring the Preparations section on the article even when the content was restored by multiple editors. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Pirate of the High Seas its you who is desperatly adding that. If I have removed it you too have readded it. So if its a violation its from both sides. I removed the content because it was clearly marked disputed. And that is the sole reason why it was removed every time after it. Besides there are multiple users who want to remove it. And just you who wants to add it.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 14:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pirate of the High Seas is removing notice served by another user which is related to this dispute.
 * Revision as of 20:04, 10 September 2023  Shaan Sengupta Talk 14:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'll decline this for now. The page is extended-confirmed protected now and I'd like to see how that works out. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree Thanks for it. Was much needed.  Shaan Sengupta Talk 15:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:103.171.44.94 reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1174731772 by Semsûrî (talk) The uploader Allice Hunter stated Information available on page Basques and Basque diaspora on the English Wikipedia with UploadWizard in the file history."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1174731422 by Semsûrî (talk) Basque people live in those highlighted countries. See the Basque diaspora article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1174730815 by Semsûrî (talk) It’s a good image for the infobox. It highlights the Basque diaspora."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1174465921 by Semsûrî (talk) Other articles about ethnic groups such as Catalans uses the same map."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

3RR breaches and has a lack of understanding in regards to not adding unsourced information (map in this case) to Wikipedia. Semsûrî (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Thewikizoomer reported by User:Pirate of the High Seas (Result: Nominator blocked a week for sockpuppetry)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:34, 9 September 2023 Edit Summary: "Preparations were written like a news essay. editors are advised to stick to neutral point of view"
 * 2) 12:44, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: "refrain from unconstructive edits"
 * 3) 12:57, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: n/a
 * 4) 15:10, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: "unsourced content removed"
 * 5) 15:16, 10 September 2023 Edit Summary: "appropriate citation added"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This User reported me above, kept leaving multiple warnings on my talkpage, requested page protection and then used false edit summary (see diff #4) to censor and continue edit-warring that too without engaging on the article talkpage. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Appears like retaliatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=1174753805&oldid=1174732481) filing. Administrators requested to look through this. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Diff link related to the dicussion of removal of unsourced content can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikishovel&diff=1174771606&oldid=1174753993 Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * by for using IP addresses to sock. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I should add here that I also warned User:Thewikizoomer twice about their blatant edit-warring at the same article today: ,. Their response: and . Wikishovel (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Foxbro69 reported by User:Skywatcher68 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 22:31, 10 September 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 00:36, 11 September 2023
 * 2) Revision as of 00:42, 11 September 2023
 * 3) Revision as of 01:55, 11 September 2023
 * 4) Revision as of 01:59, 11 September 2023
 * 5) Revision as of 02:02, 11 September 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 01:59, 11 September 2023

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Latest revision as of 02:06, 11 September 2023

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Latest revision as of 02:38, 11 September 2023

Comments:

I'm guessing Foxbro69 also edited while logged out to add support for themselves. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And now we have someone whose very first edit is to support Foxbro69.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The possible socking can be dealt with at SPI or through a checkuser. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Diogenhty reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ashurst Australia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Similar actions at Big Six (law firms) also. Not willing to communicate on the user talk page/ edit summary or on the article talk page. New account with prior knowledge of using Wikipedia tools. Looks like a sock of someone! Jeraxmoira (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , two reverts from a new editor over a couple of days (and they have been given no warning concerning edit warring) doesn't rise to the level of actionable edit warring. I don't see anything that jumps out as prior knowledge of using Wikipedia tools but if you suspect sockpuppetry the correct venue is WP:SPI, not here. - Aoidh (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:CrashLandingNew reported by User:Sutyarashi (Result: Blocked 36 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: User:CrashLandingNew has long history of edit warring at article, going back atleast to March when he blanked the article while accusing me of sockpuppetry, all without any trace of evidence. The user has not also bothered to engage at talk page. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Both user talk pages received the GS/Alert annotated for South Asian social groups.
 * Sutyarashi received theirs at 14:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC) in this edit
 * CrashLandingNew received theirs at 14:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC) in this edit
 * Those analysing this report may wish to remind each editor of their obligations 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent yes, I kept that in mind and even tried to engage the user at talk page, but they didn't replied. Thanks for the standard alert though. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Plus there was hardly any content dispute, as User kept removing large parts of article backed with reliable references without any talk page discussion. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi Forgive me for pointing out the blindingly obvious, but the editor you reported has been given a short, preventative block. There is no need to keep selling this idea. Indeed, it is not always to one's advantage to keep doing so. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, my apologies. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Drew1830 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1174857170 by Oknazevad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1174792133 by PeeJay (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1174787184 by PeeJay (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1174494820 by PeeJay (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Disruptive editing on MLS season articles */ Reply"

Comments:

Reverting more than a few editors to add an uncited section in place of a cited list (which, admittedly, does need cleanup but has citations) against project consensus and with no attempt to explain their edits nor engage in civil conversation. This has also happened recently at 2011 Major League Soccer season and previously at other MLS season articles, where some WP:OWN-like behavior has been displayed. An attempt to reach out was made at WT:FOOTY and the response was a personal attack on myself and other editors.  Sounder Bruce  17:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * High time for a block for Drew. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You revert my edits without cause then I'll revert them back. Your rules are arbitrary and you offer nothing regarding the actual substance of the article. Drew1830 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * SounderClown started whatever "war" this is by undoing my edits without cause. His whining has no merit. Drew1830 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to make this simple, Drew. You are in the wrong here. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the reverts of others. There is a protocol in place where, after being reverted, you use the article discussion pag eto find a consensus for your edits. Do not ever think that edit summaries are efficient in resolving disagreements in editing. They don't. There is no hurry to get the material into the article, and if discussion fails, there is Third Opinion or further escalation. Bypassing that process is an absolute, sure way to get you blocked for a lengthy amount of time. The rules aren't arbitrary; you revert 3 times, you almost always get blocked.
 * If none of what I am saying resonates within you, it might be time to think about whether Wikipedia is the place for you. If you can't edit collaboratively, you can't edit here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Bon courage reported by User:Curran919 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Sept 11
 * 2)  Sept 11
 * 3)  Sept 11
 * 4)  Sept 6
 * 5)  Sept 6
 * 6)  Sept 4
 * 7)  Aug 28 (later self revert)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: original:; later:, also:, request for mediation:

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

Comments:

User is reverting anyone else who makes changes and has a clear WP:TE for WP:SKEP. User even asked for content within a pay-walled source to supercede already-reverted source, then when given the content of the paywalled source, decided it did not suit their narrative and found older source that did. User's talk page shows long history of edit warring with similar WP:SKEP articles.Curran919 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 1 is not a "revert", just normal editing to clear out unsourced content (I've done a lot of work on the article). But even so there's no violation. The rest is just fantasy. Bon courage (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * . There's a lot of reverting on that article but no 3RR violations, and if blocking editors was the answer it would be multiple editors that would be blocked, so I've protected the page for 3 days instead so that discussion can continue. Please use the talk page and come to some kind of consensus for the material, using WP:DR if necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:WakayamaY reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."
 * 2)  "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information. "
 * 3)  "This is my life story and the summary I have removed is factually incorrect! And the media article cited is based on misinformation I will report this."
 * 4)  "This is my life story and the summary I have removed is factually incorrect! And the media article cited is based on misinformation I will report this."
 * 5)  "This is my life story and the summary I have removed is factually incorrect! And the media article cited is based on misinformation I will report this."
 * 6)  "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."
 * 7)  "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."
 * 1)  "The previous discription was factually incorrect. This has been revised to accurately represent correct information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . This is a new editor who wasn't warned and was likely unaware of the edit warring policy, so I have left a message on their talk page encouraging them to use the article's talk page instead of making further reverts. Further reverts may result in a block of some kind. Aoidh (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:PeeJay and User:Drew1830 reported by User:67.149.160.101 (Result: closed, reverted, closed again)
Page:

Users being reported: &

Previous version reverted to: - version before edit warring

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * Drew1830
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

This user has requested not to receive templates
 * PeeJay

The user was not notified by me, as I am a third party.
 * Drew1830

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

Discussion not initiated by myself as I am a third party to this edit war.

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


 * User talk:PeeJay
 * User talk:Drew1830

Comments:

This is getting ridiculous. The reporting user seems to have some sort of vendetta against me. User:Drew1830 has been blocked for making disruptive edits. The reverts I made that are listed here were attempts to curb Drew1830's disruption. Can I file some sort of appeal for vexatious reporting by User:67.149.160.101? – PeeJay 17:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It takes at least 2 users to edit war. I also note you did not attempt to engage in discussions with Drew and dismissed Drew as a ccontributor outright in an edit summary.
 * Edit Summary Diffs:
 * this is not an improvement, and given that the user appears to be WP:NOTHERE, I think we can disregard their contribution
 * please discuss major changes on the article talk page, or a wider community page such as WT:FOOTY
 * 67.149.160.101 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The user's conduct had been reported at WT:FOOTY as being disruptive by User:SounderBruce. Their conduct was clearly disruptive. Of course, at least they made some sort of contribution to the discussion at WT:FOOTY, whereas you have yet to do so at WT:RU regarding the disagreement that precipitated this witch hunt. – PeeJay 17:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the wikiproject going to do? give a stern telling off and not let them in to their club house?...WT:Footy does not control or own football articles. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, WP:FOOTY does have some level of control over football articles. It's important to maintain consistency across the encyclopaedia, and WikiProjects are responsible for making sure their articles are both consistent with each other and the MOS. – PeeJay 19:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * PeeJay, your behavior was atrocious. You have been editing in Wikipedia for almost two decades, and - after a cursory glance at your lengthy block log - seem to have failed to wrap your head around how edit summaries are not a replacement for actual article page discussion. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. If you're lucky enough to avoid a lengthy block - and there is no reason to suggest you should not be blocked - you better start accepting that you must discuss. If you can't do that, we can certainly see to it that Wikipedia doesn't let you edit here anymore. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am fully aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. This is not an example of me ignoring that. User:Drew1830's conduct was reported by User:SounderBruce at WT:FOOTY, and I acted appropriately based on that reported conduct. If a user refuses attempts to get them to discuss their edits and then calls other editors "clowns", they've exhausted any patience they might otherwise have deserved at the start of their editing journey. – PeeJay 18:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Closed "I am a third party". Yeah, right. Posted by an IP that judging by their behaviour, is either Drew1830 or continuing their disruption - look at the number of reverts of PeeJay by them. Not happening. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not make such a ridiculous statement...please look more closely before you make such wild attacks. Please with draw the above personal attack I am NOT Drew1830. You need much more than a feeling to make such an attack. I strongly suggest you apologise and think before launching a personal attack. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * CLOSED. The next person to reopen this discussion gets blocked for tendentious editing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is one of the worst cases of admin abuse I have encountered. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

User:81.226.93.28 reported by User:Eyesnore (Result: 48 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Participation in the 2021 Capitol protest */"
 * 2)  "/* Participation in the 2021 Capitol protest */"
 * 3)  "/* Participation in the 2021 Capitol protest */"
 * 4)  "/* Participation in the 2021 Capitol protest */"
 * 5)  "/* Participation in the 2021 Capitol protest */"
 * 6)  "/* Participation in the 2021 Capitol protest */"
 * 7)  "/* Participation in the 2021 Capitol protest */"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jon Schaffer."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuing to change "attack" to "protest" contrary to community consensus  Eye snore  15:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (ADD) Other editors and I have repeatedly told the IP to discuss why this change is needed, but the IP ignored and continued to revert anyway.  Eye snore  15:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:2C3:8380:1780:3940:3472:FE62:F0CC reported by User:Cinemaniac86 (Result: Semiprotections)
Page: Main source of drama:

(pending; nothing yet, but potentially inevitable at this rate)

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: This is not the first occurrence. And it mostly seems to occur with the Best Actress page. I've been making constructive edits. First as simple as just cleaning-up some of the excess. The infoboxes of the sidebar thumbnails, refining what they say, at first got wordy, but then I caught my own self, and kept it simple on all four acting pages. Just the actor and the film, unless it was a notable first, and kept it minor with a link to the superlative wiki page. (Such as black actors, or oldest winners.) Now, the sidebar had sporadic white space unnecessarily peppered in between sections, but some thumbnails spilled over from previous sections, so the best way to avoid this, was to bring all thumbnails to the top and have them all flow together, and thus avoid any whitespace. They are all even. Today, I tried to placate the troll by keeping headshots of everybody he liked, splitting the actresses who won on supporting and leading actress. It was difficult and time consuming, but I didn't mind, and it worked out. Unfortunately, that wasn't good enough, and my actions were continually undone. All of them, for that matter. Everything I've done positively for the past couple of weeks. Anything I've sourced. Any piping link I've fixed. Any images I've placed. The character names I had to fix. The incorrect character name links (where some were linked to their husbands or to a legal case, which is improper). Tried to be patient, left a message, with the 3-Revert-Warning.

One last thing to note is this. Check out these other IP addresses. These have consistently done the EXACT SAME reverts as tonight, only less aggressively. Tonight was relentless, and often within minutes or even seconds after undoing the damage.
 * 1)  - Just always revert, never explain.
 * 2)  - This occurred today, right before the DIFFs above, only quite subtly.
 * 3)  Too many to count. ALSO, see their Talk Page. I left them a message about trying to reach a compromise! Never heard from them, or saw an edit..from that IP again!

Well, the user did reply to me. I did find it fairly condescending in parts. Much of it sounding arrogant and subjective, as if their way is the only correct way. I did explain to them under the guidelines of reverting that constructive edits cannot be reverted just because the other editor presumes they must be the correct one. However, they also did give me some insight. Page protection should probably be sought nevertheless. I DO think some scrutinization at those previous unregistered accounts should be taken. They seem to be all from the same user. User claimed not to know where the talk page was, but did claim to know how "painstakingly long" the effort was to select these images. Wanted to add: Just hope that this will not continue, as it is mentally and emotionally exhausting. A resolution and perhaps compromise, if they respond well, and aren't blocked for their violation. I apologize if I was too loquacious, but I just wanted to be sure I explained myself well enough. Thank you.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Result: The first three of the above listed articles have each been semiprotected two months by User:Courcelles due to a complaint at RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Socratead reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  " I have responded with 4 arguments that prove that Grand Slam total for Single, Double and Mixed is a FAKE statistic that creates biased opinion about the comprative abilities of tennis pplayers."
 * 2)  "1. Whoever creates FAKE "end of career" statistics that lump together SINGLE and DOUBLE results would have to explain how Siniakova with 7 "majors" is a better and more respected tennis player than Ash Barty with 4 "majors". It's a no brainer that this is completely FAKE! 2. Now about the "mixed double" which are a JOKE. There is no criteria to equate "mixed double Grand Slam" having the same weig."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1175015972 by Fyunck(click) (talk) All the ranking and tournament wins are reported SEPARATELY for years from single and doubles. There is no counting together of wins in single and double tournament in a year and there is no sense to make it for a career because they are 2 different stats."
 * 4)  "No one with a bit of brain puts all the Grand Slam together. I understand some people don't like Djokovic has the most so they are now trying to rewrite the rules of tenis."
 * 5)  "he Tennis Federation who is the authority never counts them together. Why not counting then also the Junior Grand Slams? So it is clearly incorrect to put them together."
 * 6)  "It is not conceptually correct to count together Grand Slams from single and double tennis. The titles are of different nature and should be counted separately."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Billie Jean King."
 * 2)   "/* September 2023 */"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Billie Jean King."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Removal of longstanding info on title numbers."

Comments:

This user is also going by anon IP 99.225.155.30 in removing long-standing content. I explained that the WTA uses this totaling ((www.wtatennis.com/players/110100/billie-jean-king#bio) as do many other sources. That's why it's been here so long. I asked to bring to talk and you see the response. Multiple editors are reverting him on these edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * note - I see they are also removing this type of total at Serena Williams article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * and now this garbage on Serena Williams. Now 2x. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Garbage from tennis.com? Socratead (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There is separate ranking and separate counting YEAR over YEAR for Singles and Doubles in Tennis. There is no STAT that counts as "number one" player in a year by counting tournament wins in BOTH, singles and doubles. There is no END OF YEAR title that counts tournament wins single and double together. There are separate pages for the same player for SINGLE and DOUBLES. It makes ZERO sense to put together a sum for a CAREER when these are not connected in any way. I understand why some would like to count them together for their advantage because they are behind now in single, however, if they are not related in a year there is NO REASON to lump them together in a career? Socratead (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Counting DOUBLE and SINGLE result together and creating all time list is a flawed statistic. A flawed statistic is one that DOESN'T reflect any reality at a certain moment in time, it is just lumping together things that at any moment DO NOT CORELATE. Let us take the year 2023. If Alcaraz wins a US Open in Doubles this will not make him numbber 1 in singles because SINGLES and DOUBLES are not counting together during the career of any individual. If you count them together in the end of the career you are actually altering the reality because you are creating an all time list that is not reflective of ANY SPECIFIC MOMENT OF TIME during the career. There is no moment in a tennis career when a player by winning a SINGLE tournament will receive any recognition in the DOUBLE rankings. Same applies and there is no moment in a tennis career when a player by winning a DOUBLE tournament will receive any recognition in the SINGLE rankings. These are completely separate career paths and lumping them together creates the impression that a player who played only singles or only doubles was a less important player than another one that played both. Socratead (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoever creates FAKE "end of career" statistics that lump together SINGLE and DOUBLE results would have to explain how Siniakova with 7 "majors" is a better and more respected tennis player than Ash Barty with 4 "majors". It's a no brainer that this is completely FAKE! Socratead (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now about the "mixed double" which are a JOKE. There is no criteria to equate "mixed double Grand Slam" having the same weight as a Single Grand Slam Winner. For your reference, Billie Jean King who is highly promoted for political reasons, has won 1967 mixed double Grand Slam by playing quarter finals, semifinals and finals - 3 matches to win the Grand Slam on mixed -. I would like to remind you that the Winner of a Grand Slam Single needs to win 7 matches, a winner of a 1000 single tournament needs to win 5 or 6 matches, a winner of a 250 tournament still need to win at least 4. So the numbers of wins requred for the Mixed Grand Slam is LOWER than a 250 single tournament!!! It is OUTRAGEOUS that someone would count MIXED and SINGLES together becaue they only share the location NOTHING ELSE. Socratead (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

User is blocked for 72 hours, for the edit warring on Billie Jean King, where they are clearly editing against two other editors. In addition, there is the yelling and the arguing here--and what's more, there may be serious BLP violations on Serena Williams. This user, if they don't come back with a different attitude, is headed for a NOTHERE block since what they are exhibiting is the opposite of collaborative behavior. HOWEVER (see I have all-caps too), User:Fyunck(click), you are NOT looking good here, and the only reason I didn't block you is that also reverted; in other words, you weren't the only one. But you clearly broke 3R in the Williams article, and your edit summaries there leave plenty to be desired. The next admin, looking at the next report, might look at your behavior less leniently than I did. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. In my defense I would say this. One, I looked at this as a sockpuppet vandalizing by repeated removal of decade-old content from two articles. And two, I did not overstep the reverts "until" others joined in to help undo the mischief. Once I saw others were involved, the situation changed imho. I repeatedly asked them to bring it to talk. I had to start the conversation on the talk page. I brought it here. All I got from the editor was in essence he will remove it no matter how many times they get reverted. I can see where you might view me from another angle, but I do feel pretty good about the steps I took. I will say in hindsight I should have brought this to a different Ani noticeboard. Sorry about that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fyunck(click), I appreciate the note--but you can't go on reverting even after others signal their agreement: 3RR is 3RR (and it doesn't matter whether it's about the same content). No, this noticeboard is fine, but the reverting was not. If you want to claim (because that's a claim) that there is socking going on or whatever, you can invoke WP:3RRNO--but you have to do so explicitly, in an edit summary, and even then an admin doesn't automatically accept it. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Always learning something. I did state it in their talk page warning listed above that they were also using 99.225.155.30., but I did not in the edit summary at all. I'll do my best to make sure that it's in the summary from now on. I'll plop this info on my user page as a reminder. Thanks. addendum: Using hindsight and looking back at my edits, this person looks to be fairly new to editing here. I should have better explained the workings of reverts to them. Maybe they would have self-reverted and this whole thing could have been avoided. Lot's of mischief fixing since the US Open and with their quick demanding/warning to me perhaps my patience was a bit frayed. Sorry if that added to the issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

User:ScavengerRx9 reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Please help restore the Featured Article to the last stable version with the proper team stat updates. The user vandalizing the article (changing the cited information) is gaming the system by hiding their disruptive edits within updates made to the article's team results and player data. Since the football World Cup matches are being played at the moment, lots of IP users are updating the team stats within the article. Unfortunately, the folks at WP:FOOTY instead of promoting article stability by separating current events like ongoing/upcoming fixtures, are catering to the football fans desperate to use Wikipedia as a news article of their favorite teams. --MarshalN20 <sup style="color: maroon">✉ 🕊 14:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Junaga1 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I am fixing, wrong information. you "editors" are not helpful."
 * 2)  "oh but gatekeeping and showing wrong information is?"
 * 3)  "do it yourself, i agree with the change; I spend my 10 minutes helping humankind, am not going to read the talk page for 3 hours"
 * 4)  "undo undo. the new revision is not perfect, but better than the previous."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also edit warring at Negative number and Hindu–Arabic numeral system MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

User:InternationalPageant reported by User:Bri (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Grand_International_2023&diff=next&oldid=1175059305
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Grand_International_2023&diff=prev&oldid=1175162413
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miss_Grand_International_2023&diff=1175238485&oldid=1175219589

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (after filing here; not attempted before given that they aren't responsive to their own talkpage)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInternationalPageant&diff=1175082121&oldid=1175065769

Comments: Like many novice pageant editors, this editor wants to add sub-national flags profusely to articles. They probably are a mobile editor who hasn't seen repeated warnings about this issue on their talkpage.

Since the article has been twiddled by a sockfarm, it is eligible for WP:GS/PAGEANT protections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bri (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The page is already indefinitely semi-protected and the sockpuppetry occurred before the protection, so the "proven to be ineffective" requirement of the protection policy section isn't fulfilled by the above-linked sockpuppetry alone. It may be fulfilled by the general disruption or by sockpuppetry that didn't yet lead to a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm. 's only response to the concerns so far was to give questionable advice to another user in response to yours. I'm open to unblocking as soon as finds their own talk page and agrees to adhere to existing consensus even if it doesn't match their personal opinion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

User: Abbas Harun reported by Phoebe Barnard (not a Wikipedia editor) (Result: Declined – wrong noticeboard)
Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am not an editor but a climate and biodiversity scientist who is being pressurized by one of your editors, Mr Abbas Harun, to hire him to write a Wikipedia Profile on me and my career. Despite the fact that an independent consultant had already submitted a profile for me, he has repeatedly contacted me on LinkedIn in an attempt to pressurize me to hire him instead. He boasts that he can write and approve his own entries.

I find this disappointing and annoying, and contrary to the spirit and values of Wikipedia. I have informed him on LinedIn of this action I am taking.

Sorry for not knowing all your coding conventions.

Thanks for paying attention, Phoebe Barnard

https://www.linkedin.com/in/phoebe-barnard/

14 September, 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:4002:9610:F556:4543:C517:BBB5 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see Articles for creation/ScamWarning. If you are hiring people to edit Wikipedia on your behalf, please ensure that they comply with our policies on paid editing. – bradv  18:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is the Wikipedia noticeboard for reporting edit warring, so I'm closing this unrelated report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Shayan MB24 reported by User:Sunnya343 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * . This is a slow moving but lengthy edit war, however no edits have been made by either editor to the article in about 40 hours, so a short term block wouldn't seem to prevent anything. However, both editors are warned that further edit warring may result in blocks to prevent further disruption. Aoidh (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Sunnya343 reported by User:Shayan MB24 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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:

This user has engaged in disruptive editing and removing material without providing any sufficient reason other than the fact that they just desire to do so.
 * This is a slow moving but lengthy edit war, however no edits have been made by either editor to the article in about 40 hours, so a short term block wouldn't seem to prevent anything. However, both editors are warned that further edit warring may result in blocks to prevent further disruption. Aoidh (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User:MrFoxMrFox reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

MrFoxMrFox claimed the reference didn't say what it clearly does. Then he claimed it was inaccessible. When I restored it with an archiveurl, he just deleted it again now claiming it is promotional. He is edit warring and changing his reasoning every time. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to explain to @ThaddeusSholto that just because an owner/director claims the company was founded in 1772 in an after-buy interview does not make the statement true. When I asked him to support this claim with a UK Companies House reference which is a record of all established companies in the UK, he chose to revert my edits. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

These are extraordinary claims which conflict with the only reliable source in this situation - UK Companies House which states the company was founded in 1996.MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You did more than remove that one reference. You also removed images you didn't like because they showed the 1772 date. Whether or not you agree with the given reference doesn't matter. It is a reliable source and you are removing it because you personally disagree with it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * These images appear to be promotional material from the company. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, the very same images are featured on their website. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @ThaddeusSholto Wikipedia should not be an avenue for marketing and surely must not resort to posting advertising/marketing/branding/promotional images featuring an unsubstantiated date of establishment clearly not linked to reality (Companies House). The fact that these images also appear on the company's website means they should not be used on Wikipedia which is encyclopaedic in nature. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also point out that it takes two to edit war and for every revert on my part was a revert by you. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You made nine edits to my three. My third was to add the archiveurl to show that the reference actually did claim what you claim it doesn't. You made four edits after I warned you about 3RR. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reference is an interview with the owner? Are you claiming this is more accurate than Companies House? MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If an interview with the owner of a company is taken as gospel and treated as more reliable for the founding of a company than Companies House then Wikipedia as we know it is well and truly a failed project. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention promotional imagery featuring an unsubstantiated year of foundation from a company's website being used in a corresponding wikipedia article to somehow confuse readers. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that my all my edits have been encyclopaedic, objective and factual, seeking to improve Wikipedia by removing promotional material. MrFoxMrFox (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Thinkerbell22 reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Thinkerbell22 has chosen a few articles, including Coco bread, to rewrite to make them exclusively Jamaican. When I pointed out that one of the references he added says "A classic recipe across the Caribbean" his reply was "does that mean that jerk isnt from a specific country?" and then he reverted the article again. I explained in my edit summaries that he was claiming things the references just don't say (his reference never says it is called "Jamaican fricassee chicken" yet he keeps adding it) but he just reverts anyway. He has edited this article six times today. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have provided countless valid citation on my edits, however, you decide that this does not matter since i have made edits exclusive to Jamaica topics that i am knowledgeable on. You have reverted my edits beyond 3 times to the original article that has little citation with your only explanation being that i edit on topics regarding Jamaica Thinkerbell22 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but that just isn't what happened. I tried to incorporate your references and pretty much all of your text here but I altered it to actually reflect what the references state (not exclusively Jamaican) and removed what they don't (the aforementioned absence of any reference claiming the name "Jamaican fricassee chicken".) I explained on your talk page and I used edit summaries which explained exactly what my edit entailed. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Rolf716 reported by User:Dekema (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Hello, I'm reporting a relatively newer user who appears to have an active focus on adding WP:UNDUE weight about opposition to the Proposed expansion of the Buffalo Metro Rail. I can tell you that there's an anti-expansion activist group that recently sprung up along the proposed route, so I'm not surprised to see that someone wants to contribute this to the article, but relative to the amount of information of the topic, it should not take up half of the lede. It should be in its own section. At this point the user has also asked someone to intervene against me, for whatever that's worth. It's not that serious of an issue. dekema (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As you completely removed all references, shows your intent to censor relevant information. Rolf716 (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not about censorship, it's about article neutrality. The lede of an article is supposed to be a summary of the whole of the article. You can't just stuff anything into the lede, it needs to go in its proper place in the article, and then if it has significance it can be mentioned in the lede section. dekema  (Formerly Buffaboy) (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Jmsrobinson reported by User:Intforce (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1175643763 by Intforce (talk) Pleae, read WP:STATUSQUO do not revert until a consensus is reached. I already added the suggested tag."
 * 2)  "Moving to section"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1175543272 by Intforce (talk) Please, do not censor this. Let's discuss it on the talk page first."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1175434268 by 69.89.53.221 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diff

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

Comments:

has been repeatedly been attempting, presumably first as an IP user, and now with an account, to add problematic material to Microsoft Azure, ignoring concerns made on the talk page. intforce (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You started censoring this before reaching a consensus. I already requested a third party opinion. Jmsrobinson (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Iaof2017 reported by User:AzorzaI (Result: No violation)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [.]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) The first revert of this user.
 * 2) The second of the same user

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Backstory: I wanna make it clear that I have had some issues with this user on another article earlier today (user's revert:). The revert itself is not my issue, but the editor would fully revert without communicating, even after me taking it to the article's TP and the editor's personal TP (which is the warning I referred to above). The user never responded to neither of them and had my comment on his TP removed. I'm writing this "backstory" because I consider that to have made the user already aware of his disruptive behaviour.

Now, what I am actually basing my report on, is the user's breach of the 1RR in this article. Removing substantial amounts of sourced information and does it, yet again, without even attempting to elaborate. I can see the that the editor has more years of experience on Wikipedia than I do, yet I can't figure out why this user behaves this way.
 * What about your first revert by another user? Iaof2017 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no WP:1RR breach here. Iaof's two reverts are consecutive/back-to-back, so, as per edit warring policy, they are counted as a single revert. Better sort out your content disputes on the tp than come and waste time here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple times did the editor ignore me when I reached out to request elaboration. The user should have taken it to the TP after reverting, especially since it included the removal of nine references. For me, further attempts to communicate with this editor was no longer possible. --Azor (talk). 23:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * if you disagree with AzorzaI, you should explain your rationale and discuss on the tp. Otherwise, AzorzaI has the right to revert again after waiting for a reasonable period of time. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, after a few days. Not after a few hours. Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * . Per WP:3RR: A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. Aoidh (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Asarlaí reported by User:Darker Dreams (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  incorrectly identified Darker Dreams (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see comments

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

Comments:

This is a continuation of ongoing dispute which consumes most of the talk page, has had attempted mediation, etc. This editor has previously felt it was appropriate to make edits to "undercut the premise" of articles rather than improve them (contributing to their deletion), and are now suggesting they should take me to AN/I for inappropriate behavior through this series of edits. Darker Dreams (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I haven't broken 3RR, and never have in sixteen years of editing. The first two diffs are one revert: it's me removing two separate bits of content once . The third diff is me adding a tag that merely asked you for a quote. And the last diff is me re-adding that tag.
 * As outlined here, I undid your edit because the claim doesn't seem to be supported by the sources, the references were just bare URLs, and it was put into the lead despite not being in the main body. That goes against three guidelines: WP:NOR, WP:BAREURL and WP:LEAD, as I explained in my edit summary.
 * I read through the sources and couldn't find anything that supported the statement, so I immediately posted on the talkpage, asking you for quotes to back it up. Instead of simply doing that, you reverted me and immediately warned me for 'edit warring', just for reverting you once! When I tagged the content with you just deleted the tag and said the quotes are on the talkpage somewhere. They're not, and you still haven't provided any.
 * Despite being on Wikipedia for years, you're behaving like someone who doesn't know or care about basic Wikipedia rules. For example here, you said you were ignoring WP:BRD because "it's optional". You've been warned many times lately for edit warring on witchcraft-related articles, and only last month you were blocked for edit warring on a POV fork you had made. I suggest outside editors read that thread to get a feel for what DarkerDreams has been up to lately. – Asarlaí  (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I incorrectly identified one of the edits as including a partial revert. Asarlaí is correct that they maintained precise adherence to the 3RR rule, as they strictly have throughout this dispute. They simply apply exactly that every time an edit they disagree with is made, then look to for every additional requirement without evidence of cooperation or compromise until all but the most trivial of efforts have maximum time and energy cost imposed on them. Darker Dreams (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * per above. For now. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Illuminaati reported by User:Admantine123 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "All valid citations are provided.  Kushwaha name variation was always there this article until it was incorrectly removed some time back. If you want to open discussion then go ahead I can prove it anywhere. But till then Kushwaha name stays."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1175766177 by Admantine123 (talk)  Open your eyes and read the citations."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1175736705 by Admantine123 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Read properly. The citations are about Kachhwaha"
 * 5)  "I read the entire book "Peasants and Monks in British India" . Nowhere it says that Kushwahs and Kachhwaha are different. Infact it says this  "Kushvaha kshatriyas then became known by the more familiar local designations of Kachhvaha, Kachhi, Murao, and Koiri."        It also uses Kachhvaha as a synonym for Kushwaha when he says "Kachhvahas of western Uttar Pradesh""
 * 6)  "As we see Kushwaha and Kachhwaha are always used as variations of same name. Quote:   "From these Kash or Kach derives the great Kashwaha or Kachwaha (Kushwaha or Kuchwàha) of the Rajput genealogies." Also note that in many parts of India ksa sound is replaced by kcha so"
 * 7)  ""Kushwaha or Kachhwaha" again used as synonyms in The Thirty-six Royal Clans"
 * 8)  "Changes with legitimate proofs reverted without reaso"
 * 9)  "Kushwaha, Kachhwaha, Kachhawa are different pronounciations of same community."
 * 1)  "Changes with legitimate proofs reverted without reaso"
 * 2)  "Kushwaha, Kachhwaha, Kachhawa are different pronounciations of same community."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Kachhwaha."
 * 3)   "/* Discussion on WP:ANI */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* Regarding your recent edits */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2) User talk:Illuminaati, since the matter is about pages of two castes, it was good to discuss on users talk page.

Comments:

Actually, they read the book peasant and monks in British India partially through Google search and using their selected content from it they are trying to link two different communities Kushwaha and Kachhwaha. The quote they have left in edit summary is from chapter "Being Kshatriya Being Vaishnav" and there, author william pinch say that community such as Koeri , Kachhi and Murao people, who are together called Kushwaha formed organisation and started linking them to Kshatriya. But they take 4 lines from it to proove that Kushwaha and Kachhwaha are same. Also, it seems they have WP:CIR issue as they don't respond on their talk page. Admantine123 (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 
 * This is taken from "Peasant and monk in British India" and it explicitly says what I have explained above. On the other hand, they have been trying to link two caste, one being an aristocratic caste, another a peasant one.-Admantine123 (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is unsuitable for discussions about the article content itself; edit warring is behavior, and behavior is looked at here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

User:OrionNimrod reported by User:Aristeus01 (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Vlachs: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Vlachs: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia]

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

Comments:

Repeatedly asked to discuss on talk page or appeal to dispute resolution Aristeus01 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:BOOMERANG at best. RF354 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aristeus01 started the dispute with this edit and the next edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1175335091
 * Another user, CriticKende started conversations in the talk page because he thought the distruptive behavior of the edit of Aristeus
 * Talk:Vlachs
 * Talk:Vlachs
 * First I started a conversation with the talk page to solve the issue, where I provided plenty of evidences and examples that Aristeus arbitrary WP:ORIGINAL overrides the language of the academic sources (about different 50 entries, sources) he admitted he will not check the sources one by one to make them correct to satisfy me. He never answer to my questions. That is why I restored the stable version of the page.
 * (Here at the beginning, I also showed previous example that pushing WP:ORIGINAL is not alien from Aristeus:)
 * Talk:Vlachs
 * Then myself and Aristeus did only 2 reverts whitin 24 hours, (No more than 3 reverts, nobody violated the 3 revert rule) which mean he reported me for the same small edit wat what he did the same: my aim was always to restore the stable version and structure of the page which was using many years long:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1175650504
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vlachs&diff=prev&oldid=1175663670
 * If you see his recent history, Aristeus usually report users after some similar content debate who do not agree with his personal POV. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * . While both editors have made 3 reverts within 24 hours recently, neither has violated 3RR. However, the talk page discussion does seem to be in favor of retaining the content (though weakly, as it is two editors disagreeing with Aristeus01) and Aristeus01 has been persistently reverting others and has on more than one occasion been going up to 3 reverts without exceeding it. The reverts are frequent the point that going back as far as July (and possible later) most edits by others are either fully or partially reverted by Aristeus01, and despite the handful of talk page discussions about Aristeus01's edits, there is no consensus on any of them that would warrant this persistent reverting to their preferred version. - Aoidh (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

User:A Georgian reported by User:Emolu (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution; blocked 2 weeks; nominator blocked 24 hours)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Talmai; Nadab

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User:A Georgian has been consistently vandalizing and mangling Hebrew transliterations on several pages – the above two are the only two instances where I have personally interacted with them. Upon inspection, it appears user has been doing this since at least 2012, during which point attempted to resolve via talk page – nothing appears to have changed. For the past 12 years, they seem to just go inactive for long periods of time, come back to vandalize Hebrew transliterations, and then return to dormancy. Per talk page record, user has a history of edit warring and has been blocked at least once for it. Emolu (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Financefactz reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) : 15:13, 18 September 2023
 * 2) : 15:16, 18 September 2023‎
 * 3) : 15:18, 18 September 2023‎
 * 4) : 15:29, 18 September 2023‎
 * 5) : 15:40, 18 September 2023‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (at 15:28, 18 September 2023‎, ie. after the third revert, but before the fourth and fifth)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nelson%27s_Pillar It's only a discussion if you consider instructions to other users a discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: : 15:39, 18 September 2023

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

User:148.252.128.48 reported by User:Fma12 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: this

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

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

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

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

Comments:

User has been removing contents edited and added to the page (see changes) without any edit summary to explain or justify such actions. He also blanked all my feedback left in his talk page with messages such as "THIS IS NO LAST CHANCE FMA12 GO AWAY!" (see diff above) Fma12 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Maritime guy reported by wolf (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks Blocked as a sockpuppet)
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:

Basic 4RR vio. Editor repeatedly removing sourcing and shows no intent to stop or discuss. - w o lf  15:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what a four-revert rule is, but I have blocked to prevent further edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * as a sockpuppet of UBQITOSW. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

User:24.17.106.158 reported by User:Bestagon (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "not planking"
 * 2)  "reverting, and i would thank you to not claim there wasn't a comment as regards the edit.

the included material isn't considered planking. removed as false."
 * 1)  "not planking"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warning gave by on user talk Bestagon ⬡ 01:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a bright line rule violation, but I gave him a very clear warning and explained how he needs to go to the talk page to discuss, then he reverted again. So he is one edit away from a generic non-bright line edit warring block.  I can't because I've edit the article a couple of times.  Even now, this is clearly disruptive editing.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1005:B15A:E1A3:28DF:615:B5DD:BAD5 reported by User:JeffSpaceman (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

IP editor continues to persist in reverted, even after being warned and reverted by multiple people. In order to avoid violating WP:3RR myself, I stopped reverting after my third revert on the page, explaining on the IP's talk page that they need to get consensus on the article talk page to include the material that they want to put in the article, but they have steadfastly refused to listen. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Hrjdfn0-20-81 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: indef, socking)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I merged the edits, in order to edit the edit war, because that is the only way to settle it."
 * 2)  "I discussed it on the talk page, and i have decided to merge the two edits into one, to end the edit war."
 * 3)  "I settled the war, by merging the two edits."
 * 4)  "Somebody started the edit war, I am ending it, when you know that Hurricane Lee hasn't Dissipated Yet, Hurricane Lee doesn't become "No More" until September 23rd."
 * 5)  "Even though there is no source for it, Hurricane Lee is still active until The 23rd of September."
 * 6)  "It Hasn't Dissipated Yet, Because Today is Not September 23rd, Today is September 19th,  So I Added it back, via message on Talk Page."
 * 7)  "It dissipates on September 23rd."
 * 8)  "It will dissipate on September 23rd."
 * 9)  "Hurricane Lee Hasn't Dissipated Yet."
 * 1)  "It dissipates on September 23rd."
 * 2)  "It will dissipate on September 23rd."
 * 3)  "Hurricane Lee Hasn't Dissipated Yet."
 * 1)  "It dissipates on September 23rd."
 * 2)  "It will dissipate on September 23rd."
 * 3)  "Hurricane Lee Hasn't Dissipated Yet."
 * 1)  "It will dissipate on September 23rd."
 * 2)  "Hurricane Lee Hasn't Dissipated Yet."
 * 1)  "Hurricane Lee Hasn't Dissipated Yet."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hurricane Lee (2023)."

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

Comments:

This user simply does not get it. Though the number of reverts may be considered less than that posted because some reverts were done over two or three of the linked edits, they are in clear violation of 3RR and the next revert was 10 minutes after I issued them the 3RR warning, which they replied to basically denying responsibility for the edit war and asserting that they are right. They made three additional reverts since the filing of this report and are ignoring multiple clear communications that they need to stop editing the article. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Blocked indefinitely as a sock by .--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Skornezy reported by User:Shadowwarrior8 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) first instance of editwarring
 * 2) On a round of editwarring spree removing large- amounts of sourced contents: 2, 3, 4, 5
 * 3) Another round of editwarring unilaterally removing tons of content 6, 7
 * 4) Latest round of editwarring despite numerous attempts to engage and warnings: 8, 9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10, 11, 12, 13

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14

Diff of three warnings to user's talk page: first warning, second warning, third warning

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 15

Comments:

Hello, I'm reporting a relatively new user who appears to have an active focus on removing long-standing, reliably sourced content in the article Foreign policy of Bashar al-Assad. Most of the low-quality edits made by the user are unsourced pro-dictatorship talking points, while the same person accuses other editors of making POV edits, using that as an excuse for literally academic censorship. "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." WP:POVDELETION.

User:Skornezy has been constantly engaged in unilteral removal of well-sourced content in this page and has been making adhominem attacks against other editors. The sheer magnitude of persistent content removal may likely amount to Vandalism as well, so this behaviour probably should get reported there as well. Despite multiple warnings and attempts at engagement, the user stubbornly keeps removing large amount of content. The user has a general pattern of disruptive editing and edit warring behaviour throughout his timeline, as seen in the edit history of other pages like Syria–United States relations, Saddam Hussein, etc. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 9:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I find it especially ironic that Shadowwarrior8 characterizes my edits as "low-quality [...] unsourced pro-dictatorship talking points," then—in the very next paragraph—accuses me of launching ad-hominem attacks. Skornezy (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * After their revert war that generated this report, the two users have been discussing this on the talk page as they should. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Semsaaa reported by User:190.80.137.31 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

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

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

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

Comments:

See: WP:NOTHERE, Here I have a user who does not stop disruptively editing by reversing Sony-related articles, including Crunchyroll LLC and Sony Interactive Entertainment, which by the way seems strange to me why he mixes the subsidiary opening a parentheses to a Limited liability company with the infoboxes instead of leaving them as they were before leaving an edit summary first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.137.31 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

User:23.154.136.104 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Range blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1176344246 by Bbb23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "A recent interview with Judge Frank Whitney"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1176292561 by Affowler (talk)"
 * 4)  "Fixed the vandalism"
 * 5)  "Adding reliable sources"
 * 1)  "Adding reliable sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Frank DeArmon Whitne."
 * 2)   "/* September 2023 */ fix"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've filed this against 23.154.136.104 because they've been reverting the most recently, but this actually comes from Special:contributions/23.154.136.64/26 and the disruption goes back as far as August 14, 2023, with the most recent revert (the 5th revert, not listed above) was done by 23.154.136.86. I'm obviously WP:INVOLVED, but as far as any action goes, either the range should be blocked or the article semi-protected. Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked Special:Contributions/23.154.136.104/24 for two weeks for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Sword313 reported by User:KhndzorUtogh (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

User violated WP:3RR in three different articles. User has numerous warnings on their talks, including for edit-wars - they have been blocked for edit warring already. I think more strict sanctions should apply now, and given their previous edit-warring and being reported and blocked for edit-warring, their conduct exhibits WP:NOTHERE now. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Epsilon Moron reported by User:Frietjes (Result: Partially blocked 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peterson–Žižek_debate&diff=1176406263&oldid=1176401441]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peterson–Žižek_debate&diff=prev&oldid=1176332061]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peterson–Žižek_debate&diff=prev&oldid=1176203488]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peterson–Žižek_debate&diff=prev&oldid=1175699934]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peterson–Žižek_debate&diff=prev&oldid=1173191097]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peterson–Žižek_debate&diff=prev&oldid=1172270817]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epsilon_Moron&oldid=1176401560]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APeterson–Žižek_debate&diff=1176402276&oldid=1152139547]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEpsilon_Moron&diff=1176451901&oldid=1176401560]

Comments:


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Squared.Circle.Boxing reported by User:Megabits000 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Ariana Grande: Difference between revisions ] Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariana_Grande&diff=prev&oldid=1176485190
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariana_Grande&diff=prev&oldid=1176368791
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariana_Grande&diff=prev&oldid=1176485190
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [erm. im not the one who is in the edit war, it only appears that they are warring and was reported in the CVN-wp-en Libera channel because one user was blacklisted and appeared often in the context of reverting edits by user 0mtwb9gd5wx who, in my opinion, did nothing wrong other than didnt discuss much with each other. closest they have is]

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

Comments:

User contributions for Squared.Circle.Boxing - Wikipedia look at 8:50-9:05pm est. also sorry if it isnt exactly what you are asking, first time i've actually reported one

Megabits000 (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Good attempt. Diff 1 is reverting a blatant retaliatory action; diff 2 is the initial unrelated revert (which remains unchallenged, ignoring the retaliatory revert); diff 3 is the same as diff 1. Any other editor (including the one I initially reverted) reverting this edit would be met by a talk page discussion. I won't succumb to childish disruption. – 2 . O . Boxing  01:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not see why parrot analytics is considered an unfit source in basically every single revert you did from about 8:47-9:10 and while i will concede that your first revert could be justified, it also seems that it is no less important than any other tidbit of information on many other aticles Megabits000 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Source? No source is being added. An uninformative wikilink to The Global TV Demand Awards is being added, contrary to MOS:LINK. – 2 . O . Boxing   2 . O . Boxing  01:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * hm... thank you for bringing that to my attention. the parrot analytics was to the rest of your reverts on 0mtwb9gd5wx that i (kind of still do) consider[ed] malicious (bad word for it, but words aren't my forte). i apologize for wasting your time
 * Megabits000 (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, why are you bringing up Parrot Analytics when your report is about Ariana Grande? An aroma is strengthening. I'll leave this to admins. – 2 . O . Boxing  02:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   02:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

User:2A01:B747:73:344:553E:23CA:78E4:5D50 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1176573156 by Notrealname1234 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1176573089 by LizardJr8 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1176573029 by Notrealname1234 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1176572760 by Dudhhr (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1176572677 by Dudhhr (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1176572579 by Dudhhr (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1176572347 by Dudhhr (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1176572130 by Dudhhr (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1176564154 by Favonian (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Pranay Chopde reported by User:IM3847 (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:

Reported User had received warnings from Multiple Wikipedians: Materialscientist, FutureFlowsLoveYou & Doug Weller as seen at his Talk page. Even after a prolonged discussion at the article's talk page, he went on to edit and remove data from the page without any explanation. iMahesh ( talk ) 14:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You failed to notify the user of this report. Please do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now but am busy so not looking at this. There's a major POV issue and CIR with this editor. Doug Weller  talk 15:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

User:47.232.208.73 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rv back to History of Iran edit"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1176605664 by TimothyBlue (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1176589277 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1176589277 by HistoryofIran (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Satrapy of Armenia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * IP47.232.208.73 appears to be edit-warring over numerous articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Leechjoel9 reported by User:محرر البوق (Result: Both users blocked for edit-warring in a contentious topic area)
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:

Probably one of the most frustrating users I've ever had to deal with on Wikipedia. He seems to have a very long history when it comes to edit warring and has been blocked multiples times in the past. Additionally, their talk page history includes warnings from various users regarding unproductive editing and engagement in edit wars. Mind you that articles related to the Horn of Africa is a contentious topic enacted in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa. Possible WP:NOTHERE activity. محرر البوق (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * User:محرر البوق have been edit warring and reverting Medri Bahri article eight times. User removes sources content, refuses to acknoweledge the basisc of the article, for instance that the area/kingdom lasted untill the 1890s which common knowledge, it have never been consted before untill user User:محرر البوق decided to annex 500 years of it's history to the Kingdom of Ethiopia. This is a clear voilation of WP:NPOV, in offorts to save content, sources and protect the page I reverted the users edit and asked user to get consensus before making such controversial changes. The user have refused and re-added content eitght times and still keeps on pushing this view. The user also refuses to acknoweledge the RFC outcomes, edits and disussion in the past by previous users. The user has no consensus which have been explained in the talk page of the article and the user is single handedly pushing these views. The article have a history of edit wars and socketpuppetry. I have filed an SPI  which is open since I belive this user is the same user acting as a socket, since similar views are being pushed by this user. I have also contacted two users  who are editors to the article from the past and who are familiar with the RFC of the article and to the existing consensus. One of them even filed the SPI against the blocked sock. I did warn the user  and politely urged the user refraining from making these changes and form consensus first but the user hasn't listened and preceeded doing these changes several times after this warning.

Here are the reverts by User:محرر البوق:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

I strongly disagree with User:محرر البوق claims and this is a boomerang. I myself was on the way of reporting User:محرر البوق which I stated in my second last edit, but the user in a last desperate attempt opened this ANI. I will save you the time and not open a new ANI. I think the user that should be blocked is User:محرر البوق. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * and logged under CTOPS as this comes under WP:HORN and both users are aware of this: Leech due to a previous block for two weeks (hence blocked for a month this time) as well as a logged warning for edit warring in the topic area earlier this year; Mahrir for 48 hours since they have not previously been blocked for anything. Both blocks have been logged as AE. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User:FMSky reported by User:Andrew Englehart (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I saw that at least 4 editors have added or reverted removals of the material in question, and FMSky continues to unilaterally try to impose his version onto the lead. The talk page discussion is a lot of FMSky using half-truths and circular logic. I'm unconvinced, and consensus is to include the well-sourced sentence in the lead. Andrew Englehart (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew Englehart himself has at least 4 reverts (1, 2, 3, 4). A current RfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Underground_Railroad#RfC:_Reliability_of_sources  leans towards not including the disputed content in the lead. The reporting user has ignored this discussion as well as another ongoing one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tim_Ballard#Lead and reinserted controversial and weakly sourced content over and over again --FMSky (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure FMSky's argument here is a valid reason to excuse the 5 reverts, but I will note that they themselves started that RfC and misrepresented the sourcing, claiming that only Vice and Rolling Stone are sources. WaPo and NBC are also already sources, and a quick search revealed several more. Andrew Englehart (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didnt misrepresented anything. These other sources (who btw only state "according to a vice report" or similar) were literally not available at the time. Again you would have known that if you actually bothered to read the discussion--FMSky (talk)


 * I'm one of the editors which reverted/was reverted by FMSky. I believe FMSky is mistaken about how sourcing works in this situation, but I think that their mistake is a genuine one, therefore their conduct is good faith, and thus their exceeding 3rr is covered by the BLP exemption. That being said AGF is not a suicide pact and can't be used forever as an excuse. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * since, as noted above, this comes under the "unsourced or dubiously sourced negative BLP info" exception. Apart from that, and in fact because of that, it would be a very good idea once this matter is resolved to cite this statement in the intro as well as the body. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User:AikMoon reported by User:Nemoralis (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1176849665 by Nemoralis (talk) The issue at hand is that the information presented on this page appears to be intentionally falsified. For instance, the area of the First Republic of Armenia should be determined in accordance with international laws, including those established by the United Nations and its predecessor, the League of Nations. This just one case."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1176846767 by Nemoralis (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1176810237 by TimothyBlue (talk) The preceding information appears to have several issues related to its sources and credibility. It is essential that any information provided is grounded in international agreements and the principles of the United Nations. The edits made to this article last year were deliberate and included disinformation."
 * 4)  "The preceding information appears to have several issues related to its sources and credibility. It is essential that any information provided is grounded in international agreements and the principles of the United Nations(The League of Nations). The edits made to this article last year were deliberate and included disinformation."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Introduction to contentious topics */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is not allowed to edit in WP:GS/AA area. Nemoralis (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * he issue at hand is that the information presented on this page appears to be intentionally falsified. For instance, the area of the First Republic of Armenia should be determined in accordance with international laws, including those established by the United Nations and its predecessor, the League of Nations. This just one case. What User:Nemoralis azerbaijani user falsifies Armenian History. AikMoon (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment ECP added. Request reviewing admin rollback changes to stable version.  // Timothy :: talk  11:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm trying now to contact Armenian represantives to, and armenian history to urge to take into account the falsifications of this page regarded to facts. Bounderies of First Republic Of Armenia was recognised internationaly in that time by The League of Nations, unlike Azerbaijani border moreover the rejection reason was that they include Artsakh into their maps. AikMoon (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Themadridista14 reported by User:Annh07 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor continued to make disruptive edits after being warned about edit warring. There is also a discussion here. Annh07 (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

2404:0:802e:6daf:10e:b889:1617:c34c + 123.192.89.55
The two unregistered users 2404:0:802e:6daf:10e:b889:1617:c34c and 123.192.89.55 are clearly the same person and are only on here to repeatedly push a completely unsubstantiated claim of Nikolai Kapustin's 4th Piano concerto being composed in 1990, when it was in fact composed in 1989 as clearly seen on the website of the single publisher that has rights to publish his work. https://www.schott-music.com/en/concerto-no-4-no331526.html FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Malformed, and this should be on AN/I or SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Knoterification reported by User:Tet (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

First of all, I'm aware that I technically violated 3RR (just now, but worth pointing out). The user in question has previously pushed for this various narratives against minorities, even after being given all the possible sources on them, such as the one here, over Pretendian, or being blocked for 3 days for edit warring over the article Mulatto. I also have had submitted a dispute noticeboard before against them because of disagreements in the article Murder of Moïse Mugenyi Kabagambe (a Black Congolese immigrant in Brazil). They haven't shown in discussions after all sources are exhausted. Tetizeraz -  (talk page)  02:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At least not for the edits to this article. If there is a broader case to made for this editor being sanctioned, it would be better to lay it out at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Wizardito-OL reported by User:Fdom5997 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nganasan_language&diff=prev&oldid=1177124263

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:

It doesn't quite look like a straightforward violation to me. But all the same, the talk page discussion makes clear you two need to bring in some outside voices (maybe through the appropriate project talk page?) since you've clearly both dug in your heels and no longer seem interested in reaching a solution. Maybe one of you is right, but you won't get to that point the way things are currently going. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Hgfhxfv reported by User:Belbury (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1176861092 by JJMC89 bot (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Winners */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1176660663 by JJMC89 bot (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1176660663 by JJMC89 bot (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on National Film Award for Best Actor."
 * 2)   "/* September 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User slow edit-warring with a bot, trying to add a fair use film poster to an article where a fair use claim isn't present and wouldn't be permitted. (Possibly a sock account of User:Kundipudi who was applying the same edit last week.) Belbury (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Another revert, with no edit summary and no explanation, on National Film Award for Best Actor on . Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:86.121.78.176, User:82.78.123.145 reported by User:Botterweg14 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User(s) being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

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:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments:

I'm assuming these two users are the same person given that they're attempting to introduce the same content from similar IP's, with a similar pattern of behavior within a short span of time. Likely the same person as 89.210.41.248, who was trying to add this text a few years ago. Botterweg14 (talk)  20:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

User:OgamD218 reported by User:Wes sideman (Result: Both p-blocked by for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1176425462 by Wes sideman (talk) despite threats and canvassing editor has never had consensus for changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* RfC on the inclusion of a paragraph mentioning Seward Collins and The American Review */ new section"

Comments:

Despite other editors agreeing (Jack4576, Grayfell) that a well-sourced paragraph should be left in, Ogam continues a slow-roll edit war, periodically removing the text they do not like. I don't know what other step to take at this point. Wes sideman (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wes sideman With one exception, you were the editor that reverted OgamD218. This appears to be a two-party edit war. I don't think you can assert consensus from the discussion on the talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Both were p-blocked from Neo-Confederates by  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * from article per above. I am treating this as a ordinary administrative action only because until this report, inexplicably, no one had marked the article as coming under a contentious topic—your histories show that both of you are aware of CTOPS restrictions due to previous notices and sanctions in other topic areas; specifically, both of you are well aware of WP:AP2, under which this article now comes after I left notice on the talk page—you know, the talk page you both neglected to use over the last couple of weeks while you were edit warring, the talk page where you now have more time than you expected to to work this out. If edit warring resumes after the block, or if there is unsightly behavior on the talk page, I recommend that any action taken by any responding admin be logged under CTOPS, and that means any blocks must be appealable to ArbCom only. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

User:HWGA reported by User:57.140.16.29 (Result: Already 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: Claims to represent Sharon Osbourne Management. Received several other warnings (not specifically for 3RR - I left one just now) and has declined invitations to discuss on their talk page. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * And Doug Weller handled it with a pblock just after I filed this report. Seems taken care of for now. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Neveselbert reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Function */ Morris and Krieger is obviously fringe and unreliable, and at least two other editors agree; commenting out until consensus develops"
 * 2)  "/* Function */ -obviously fringe, unreliably sourced"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1177538615 by Neveselbert (talk): There is no consensus to include biased, conflicted and fringe information from unreliable sources such as that."
 * 4)  "Restored revision 1177537869 by Prcc27 (talk): wp:fringe, conflicted sources"

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

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

Comments:

Final diff is commenting out the disputed text, but this is functionally equivalent to deleting it as the other diffs were. MrOllie (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not edit-warring. I've hidden the text until a consensus can be found on the talkpage. That's entirely in concert with regular procedure. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Mkltkn reported by User:Buidhe (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:35, 26 September 2023‎
 * 2) 21:18, 26 September 2023‎
 * 3) 06:59, 27 September 2023‎
 * 4) 12:20, 28 September 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: Curiously the account was registered in 2022 and made no edits until this series on the ASALA article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Javierc25 reported by User:CAMERAwMUSTACHE (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1177656373

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peso_Pluma&diff=prev&oldid=1177693066
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peso_Pluma&diff=prev&oldid=1177696582
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peso_Pluma&diff=prev&oldid=1177706743
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peso_Pluma&diff=prev&oldid=1177708023
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peso_Pluma&diff=prev&oldid=1177709660

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Javierc25&diff=next&oldid=1177708459

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have tried discussing it on their talk page and mine https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CAMERAwMUSTACHE&diff=prev&oldid=1177709045 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CAMERAwMUSTACHE&diff=prev&oldid=1177709928 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Javierc25&diff=prev&oldid=1177707436 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Javierc25&diff=prev&oldid=1177709702 A similar discussion was had with an IP on the article talk page, which they removed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peso_Pluma&diff=prev&oldid=1177111018

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJavierc25&diff=1177710761&oldid=1177709896 CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Ihabjar123 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "more accurate map"
 * 2)  "map is not accurate and does not represent the real situation on the ground."
 * 3)  "More detailed map based on MINURSO, Morocco and Polisario front agreements since 1991."
 * 4)  "Detailed situation map of Western Sahara according to agreements 1,2 and 3 between Morocco, Polisario front and MINURSO in 1991, Map is showing the Buffer strip, restricted zones, berm and controlled areas of both parties"
 * 5)  "Precise Western Sahara situation map including buffer strip, restricted areas, Morocco controlled area and Polisario controlled area"
 * 6)  "Detailed map of the situation of the conflict with key according to agreements 1, 2 and 3 between Morocco, Polisario Front and MINURSO."
 * 7)  "More detailed map based on signed military agreement 1, 2 and 3 between Morocco and Polisario front since 1991"
 * 8)  "The map was wrong by showing that the area east of the berm was under RASD control, it is a buffer strip supervised by MINURSO, check cease fire official document 13th line: https://minurso.unmissions.org/ceasefire-monitoring"
 * 1)  "More detailed map based on signed military agreement 1, 2 and 3 between Morocco and Polisario front since 1991"
 * 2)  "The map was wrong by showing that the area east of the berm was under RASD control, it is a buffer strip supervised by MINURSO, check cease fire official document 13th line: https://minurso.unmissions.org/ceasefire-monitoring"
 * 1)  "The map was wrong by showing that the area east of the berm was under RASD control, it is a buffer strip supervised by MINURSO, check cease fire official document 13th line: https://minurso.unmissions.org/ceasefire-monitoring"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* September 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User_talk:Ihabjar123

Comments:

Attempts at explaining to this SPA that they are wrong were in vain. They clearly have every intention of imposing their nationalist POV. M.Bitton (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The reason of my edit is that the map added by me is more accurate and detailed than the previous one for a more understanding of the public about the topic.
 * Me and @M.Bitton both agree on Morocco occupied areas and Polisario administrated areas, I still don't know his reason of not accepting the map proposed by me. Ihabjar123 (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As a result of you senseless edit warring, the template no longer has a map. As for the rest, the nonsense that you have been coming up with aside, this nationalist garbage that you wrote on your talk page says everything there is to know about you as an editor. M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They deleted the long discussion on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This removal makes me think that he's trying to hide the back-and-forth and the general pattern of editing makes me think he's not here to write an encyclopedia. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally this edit is very NOTHERE, POV, and also lacks competence. Same with this IP edit and it is consistent with his previous edits. If the pattern continues, I would open up a case at SPI. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Western_Sahara_conflict&diff=next&oldid=1177821468 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWestern_Sahara_conflict&diff=1177833858&oldid=1177833166 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Warned again: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ihabjar123&diff=prev&oldid=1177834967 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * they are now at their seventh revert (7R). Also, this is pure vandalism. M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Western_Sahara_conflict&diff=next&oldid=1177834878 ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

by for 48 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * they have been blocked for 48 hours. Time will tell if that's enough, given the highly disruptive editing and what can only be described as vandalism (see diff). M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Kakkusarkar reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "" - edit warring continues, broke 3RR.
 * 2)  "Some dialets mixed"
 * 3)  "The language data are incorrect and its changed by best"
 * 4)  "Rajsthani bagri is the same language"
 * 5)  "/* Languages */Bagri is the dialet of rajsthani language"
 * 1)  "Rajsthani bagri is the same language"
 * 2)  "/* Languages */Bagri is the dialet of rajsthani language"
 * 1)  "/* Languages */Bagri is the dialet of rajsthani language"
 * 1)  "/* Languages */Bagri is the dialet of rajsthani language"
 * 1)  "/* Languages */Bagri is the dialet of rajsthani language"

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

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

Comments:

Keeps changing census data on languages per personal preferences. Doesn't wish to discuss and gain WP:CONSENSUS. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - edit warring continues, broke 3RR. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * On a related note, an SPI is filed as well for similarity in edits. See here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Similar change of census figures in Sri Ganganagar district and Hanumangarh district articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * by . I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)