Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive474

User:12.133.214.74 reported by User:MicrobiologyMarcus (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I will repeat this one last time. These things have been proven false and need to be removed."
 * 2)  "These statements regarding Safra's political donations have been proven to be false and biased by an unbiased independent review board in March of 2023. The corrections made better illustrate her moderate political leanings."
 * 3)  "/* Political involvement */ Once again, these statements have been proven false by an independent review board in March of 2023. The edits better reflect Safra Catz's moderate political leanings."
 * 4)  "This page is unfortunately riddled with inaccuracies and assumptions. After a lengthy review by an independent nonbiased review board, it has been found that much of the information in this section is fabricated and or misleading."
 * 1)  "This page is unfortunately riddled with inaccuracies and assumptions. After a lengthy review by an independent nonbiased review board, it has been found that much of the information in this section is fabricated and or misleading."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * A series of removals do not, in this case, count as even a single revert since they were fresh. There has been only one revert. There are problems indeed with the editor's edits, but 3RR is not at the moment one of them. Daniel Case (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Akhshartag reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Note: These reverts occurred over a longer period than 24 hours


 * Arab Christians, the article with the most interaction from multiple editors trying to get Akhshartag to use the talk page
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * Raphael of Brooklyn, just me trying to request discussion
 * 1)  (As IP)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (Three days of waiting for discussion on talk page following pings between this and next reversion)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Previously warned in May)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Raphael of Brooklyn
 * Seraphim Rose
 * Saint Apostolos the New

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

Comments:

Despite repeated requests from multiple editors to engage in discussion on talk pages, they've reverted many times (not technical 3RR violations by the 24 hour window standard). See their unwillingness to discuss: ""; "". They also reverted Materialscientist's anti-vandalism action and engaged in an edit-warring BLP violation. Multiple pings on their talk page and on article talk pages have only resulted in the no explanation needed comment in discussion and "" in an edit summary. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 11:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

User:86.2.20.23 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1177964127 by MrOllie (talk) | Vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1178112092 by MrOllie (talk) | it however IS vandalism when it's not badly sourced. I count at least 20 citations. You should aim to IMPROVE sources before removing them."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1178170276 by MrOllie (talk) | Yes they do, describe what is wrong with them on the talk page and I will refute your points in a cohesive manner."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1178171044 by MrOllie (talk) "While you may have good intentions, a citation doesn't need to be a secondary source for something like software. Primary sources are fine to use in this case"

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

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

Comments: Related to long term efforts to spam references to nonnotable image board 'soyjak.party', see diff. - MrOllie (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, technically the user reverted four times in 24 hours, but they then self-reverted realizing they'd crossed the line, and have left it alone. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:220.236.126.177 reported by User:Happily888 (Result: Blocked one year)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1178202529 by Happily888 (talk) If you were to go back and watch the game while paying closer attention, those scoring timestamps match up to the game clock, it's as simple as that."
 * 2)  "/* Match */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1178086569 by 58.106.88.118 (talk) Provided no reason as to how it was "ruined""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on 2023 NRL Grand Final."
 * 2)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on 2023 NRL season."

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

Comments:

Recently unblocked IP account who has continued to edit war; not following the recommendations of unblocking admin (ToBeFree) to disengage from disputes. Happily888 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Well I provided reasoning in why the Grand Final edits were justifiable. You escalating this to another ban fixes nothing. There's no case for one. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can go ahead and rescind this report, there is nothing to it. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, the ping in Special:Diff/1178213404 didn't work, but I can't see why. Both the link to my user page and the signature seem to be correct. 220.236.126.177 notified me about the discussion, thanks.
 * I won't review this report; it would benefit from an independent reviewer. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to re-open an old, already resolved, dispute. The block wasn't lifted for no reason and I don't appreciate you actively seeking out the tiniest reasons to get me blocked again. Just let it go. 220.236.126.177 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a sock of Sockpuppet_investigations/CodyCruickshank/Archive, has had many accounts and IPs blocked, has been inserting OR material for years, and apparently will continue to do so indefinitely (unsigned, posted by User:Local Potentate)

Beg your pardon but no I will not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.126.177 (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one year (previous duration). Details in block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I reblocked amending the block log. I misread the comments above. I thought the IP left the entire comment about the alleged socking and the refusal to let go, but alleged the socking by the IP (I thought the IP was accusing the reporter) and neglected to sign it. I've now clarified the sequence above.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 As per the sockpuppet comment made above, 110.175.242.146 appears to be another ip address used by the same person to circumvent their previous blocks. Have a look at the contributions and edit summaries, both are active on the same pages and accuse people of vandalism for reverting their changes, especially on the Manly records page. PhinsUp23 (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like. However, that IP hasn't edited since September 21. We don't normally block IPs for block evasion unless they've edited recently. Feel free to let me know directly if they resume editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1015:A017:1EE6:6547:8F7C:A3F:4E85 reported by User:Dumuzid (Result: Blocked 72 hours, article semi-protected 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1178168870 by Dumuzid (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1178168870 by Dumuzid (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1178168870 by Dumuzid (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1178168870 by Dumuzid (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was warned by user:Meters on the IP's talk page, and discussion has happened on the article talk page under the heading "June 2,1924 is the exact end date of the Indian wars." Dumuzid (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I went back and looked at the page history and there's a longer history of this than just under this one IP. The page was protected last month for more or less the same issue, so I've reapplied protection for one month. - Aoidh (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the quick response. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Escj123 reported by User:Dominikcapuan (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023

Comments: User was warned by User:Dominikcapuan and User:Jochem van Hees on the user's talk page, and discussion has happened on the article talk page under the heading ("Fia" vs "FIA"). The user, in addition to not opening up to dialogue without participating in the latter talk, and insisting on the edit war, also began with the first possible vandalism on my personal user page. — Dominikcapuan (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the quick response :) — Dominikcapuan (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Yumhaihum reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Actors often fake their age..in official records of Grant medical College it's mentioned she graduated in 1994 making her current age 52"
 * 2)  "Added more info"
 * 3)  "Corrected the DOB..she was from 1989 MBBS batch which makes her dob year as 1971. No-one can enter MBBS at the age of 13 for god's sake"
 * 4)  "Corrected the DOB"
 * 1)  "Added more info"
 * 2)  "Corrected the DOB..she was from 1989 MBBS batch which makes her dob year as 1971. No-one can enter MBBS at the age of 13 for god's sake"
 * 3)  "Corrected the DOB"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Aditi Govitrikar."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Aditi Govitrikar."

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

Comments:

Making unsourced changes, broke 3RR. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Academic Challenger (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User: Drmargi reported by User:MapReader (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This should be a straightforward case of Mosnum and the editor has been directed to this specific policy. The editor, who appears to have a long track record of edit-warring, has reverted four times without raising the issue on the talk page, and has referred generally to the entirety of the project—specific MOSTV without citing which specific reference they believe justifies their multiple reverting. MapReader (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why don't you use Roman numerals? Another lame MOS edit-war brought to you by experienced users who have clearly lost their perspective on what's important.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's really not the numerals so much as Mapreader's need to be right. MOS:TV and Project TV says we use numerals in series numbers when describing characters.  He seems to feel he can unilaterally dictate that MOS:NUM, which handles numbers in most instances, somehow takes precedence, ignoring established consensus across the project.  Rather, he takes on this "I am right and you must do as I say" posture, doesn't start a discussion (hands up, I could have, too, but I am so damned weary of this BS over and over) and next thing, we've got an edit war.  He was directed to MOS:TV's section on character descriptions more than once, despite what he claims above, so he has no excuse for continuing to push this edit.  Funnily enough, I actually prefer one-ten being written out (I write professionally using APA formatting) but in this case, it's incorrect, and I prefer to go with the consensus. -- -- Dr.  Margi  ✉  18:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 3RR is supposed to be a hard standard, designed to stop the edit-warring behaviour which DrMargi has got involved in over many years with many editors, as is clear from a long record of warnings and blocks. Breaching it after being warned and hoping to get away with it really isn’t good enough.  MOSTV is a long document and I have reviewed it looking for an explicit requirement to use numerals, rather than follow the widely understood MOSNUM, for references to episodes in TV cast lists, but I couldn’t see it.  The other editor had the opportunity to provide a direct reference to any such consensus but preferred to edit war, as they have so many times before. MapReader (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , By my timeclock the timings on the reverts are 17:08 and 22:01 on 30/9 and 00:29 and 06:06 on 1/10, making four within a span of thirteen hours. MapReader (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First revert, second revert almost two and a half hours later, and third revert almost four and a half hours later. You cannot count the edit being reverted to as a revert itself ... all these edits have summaries clearly marked as "undid"). The timestamps are not the issue here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The edit being reverted to and the four subsequent reverts are all listed separately above, five links in all. MapReader (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing indicating to me that this edit is a revert of another editor. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:AarushSinha10 reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Brahmavaivarta Purana, Prakriti Khanda-
 * 1)  "Laxmi Durga is only in Vishnu, Garuda and Narada Puran not in Markandeya and Devi Bhagwat and I have provided sources in Talk Page."
 * 2)  "The references mentioned describe Lakshmi as Mahalakshmi not Durga. Please go through references carefully."
 * 3)  "/* Nine Main Forms */She is only worshipped in these forms in Madhavacharya Vaishnavism."
 * 4)  "As this article is on Navadurga so only Navadurga should be mentioned rest can be added in the article of Goddess Durga."
 * 5)  "This page is of Navadurga and Laxmi has no Nav Durga form according to scriptures.
 * 1)  "This page is of Navadurga and Laxmi has no Nav Durga form according to scriptures.
 * 1)  "This page is of Navadurga and Laxmi has no Nav Durga form according to scriptures.

गणेशजननी दुर्गा राधा लक्ष्मीः सरस्वती । सावित्री वै सृष्टिविधौ प्रकृतिः पञ्चधा स्मृता ।।

Comments-

The above Shloka lists the 5 forms of Mulaprakriti- Durga, Radha, Lakshmi, Saraswati and Savitri. While describing Devi Durga, the Shloka calls Her "Ganeshajanani" or mother of Ganesha. Now we know who's son Lord Ganesha is.

गणेशमाता दुर्गा या शिवरूपा शिवप्रिया । नारायणी..." Brahmavaivarta Purana, Prakriti Khanda-
 * 1)  "/* Hinduism */This article is on Navadurga not Durga. Laxmi's Durga form is not mentioned in scriptures.

गणेशजननी दुर्गा राधा लक्ष्मीः सरस्वती । सावित्री वै सृष्टिविधौ प्रकृतिः पञ्चधा स्मृता ।।

Comments- The above Shloka lists the 5 forms of Mulaprakriti- Durga, Radha, Lakshmi, Saraswati and Savitri. While describing Devi Durga, the Shloka calls Her "Ganeshajanani" or mother of Ganesha. Now we know who's son Lord Ganesha is.

गणेशमाता दुर्गा या शिवरूप..." This article is on Navadurga and Laxmi's Navadurga is not mentioned anywhere not even in Laxmi Tantra. According to Srimad Bhagwatam (A Vaishnavite Text) it clearly mentioned that Durga is wife of Shiva and Laxmi is wife of Vishnu wh..."
 * 1)  "/* List */The Nav Durga form of Laxmi has no scriptural reference. But when it comes to her names then she is described as Bhadrakali and Mahakali also in her Sahasranamam and also Parvati is described as Mahalaxmi but this is just to show the oneness of Goddess.
 * 1)  "Navadurga is a Shaiva Shakta Concept"
 * 2)  "Brahmavaivarta Purana, Prakriti Khanda-  गणेशजननी दुर्गा राधा लक्ष्मीः सरस्वती । सावित्री वै सृष्टिविधौ प्रकृतिः पञ्चधा स्मृता ।।  Comments-  The above Shloka lists the 5 forms of Mulaprakriti- Durga, Radha, Lakshmi, Saraswati and Savitri. While describing Devi Durga, the Shloka calls Her "Ganeshajanani" or mother of Ganesha. Now we know who's son Lord Ganesha is.  गणेशमाता दुर्गा या शिवरूपा शिवप्रिया । नारायणी विष्णुमाया पूर्णब्रह्मस्वरूपिणी ।।  ब्रह्मादिदेवैर्मुनिभिर्मनुभिः पूजिता सदा ।"
 * 3)  "/* List */"
 * 1)  "Brahmavaivarta Purana, Prakriti Khanda-  गणेशजननी दुर्गा राधा लक्ष्मीः सरस्वती । सावित्री वै सृष्टिविधौ प्रकृतिः पञ्चधा स्मृता ।।  Comments-  The above Shloka lists the 5 forms of Mulaprakriti- Durga, Radha, Lakshmi, Saraswati and Savitri. While describing Devi Durga, the Shloka calls Her "Ganeshajanani" or mother of Ganesha. Now we know who's son Lord Ganesha is.  गणेशमाता दुर्गा या शिवरूपा शिवप्रिया । नारायणी विष्णुमाया पूर्णब्रह्मस्वरूपिणी ।।  ब्रह्मादिदेवैर्मुनिभिर्मनुभिः पूजिता सदा ।"
 * 2)  "/* List */"
 * 1)  "Brahmavaivarta Purana, Prakriti Khanda-  गणेशजननी दुर्गा राधा लक्ष्मीः सरस्वती । सावित्री वै सृष्टिविधौ प्रकृतिः पञ्चधा स्मृता ।।  Comments-  The above Shloka lists the 5 forms of Mulaprakriti- Durga, Radha, Lakshmi, Saraswati and Savitri. While describing Devi Durga, the Shloka calls Her "Ganeshajanani" or mother of Ganesha. Now we know who's son Lord Ganesha is.  गणेशमाता दुर्गा या शिवरूपा शिवप्रिया । नारायणी विष्णुमाया पूर्णब्रह्मस्वरूपिणी ।।  ब्रह्मादिदेवैर्मुनिभिर्मनुभिः पूजिता सदा ।"
 * 2)  "/* List */"
 * 1)  "/* List */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Navadurga."
 * 2)   "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Navadurga."

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

Comments:

Editing/Reverting again without establishing a consensus on the talk page first. WP:DE Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Using edit summaries to discuss the dispute even after a warning given here WP:EDITCON Jeraxmoira (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a edit summary but a reference from the book which is most reliable in all kinds. AarushSinha10 (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My primary sources were rejected, unreplied, and Facebook posts were considered reliable. Other Long Paragraph was about the goddess which is not the topic. AarushSinha10 (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I request you to go through the references given by the editor carefully. He has confused Mahalaxmi with Durga. AarushSinha10 (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenryuu ridiculed my sources when i gave it in Talk Page. The article was changed based on a reference from Facebook post. Other things removed were irrelevant to the topic. Secondly I gave references in edit summary because I think I misunderstood the editors request to give reason. I accept that as a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AarushSinha10 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Rockmusicfanatic20 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 19:31 UTC, Oct 3: restore disputed genre "nu metal"
 * 20:33 UTC, Oct 3: restore disputed genre "nu metal"
 * 21:10 UTC, Oct 3: restore disputed genre "nu metal"
 * 15:01 UTC, Oct 4: restore disputed genre "nu metal"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User has been warned repeatedly at Talk:Drive_(Incubus_song) about how the WP:ONUS policy says that disputed material should stay out of the article, but they keep re-inserting it. They are not unaware of the issue: they started a Request for Comment about it. However, they keep re-inserting the disputed material. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)}}
 * Aoidh (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Pixiedreamgirl390- reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Blocked from article for 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is vandalising the article, the source you are referencing for information is an opinion piece done by Business Insider, it's not even a legitimate news source. Please stop vandalising this page. Referencing should verify stated facts about the individual. You don't quote a statement from an article that gives an opinion on a individual then make a reference to it and call it a sourceUndid revision 1178662542 by Yoshi24517 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Please stop taking out your personal opinions on someone's wikipedia article. What you are inserting isn't within the guidelines and does not add biographical context. Kindly refer to my notes on the talk page. Undid revision 1178660810 by Yoshi24517 (talk) -"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1178659153 by Adakiko (talk)"
 * 4)  "tabloid reference to once again slander the person."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seems to be a SPA who is POV-pushing. Most of the stuff they added isn't even sourced. I feel like I may have done something bad myself, so apologies, but what it looks like here, is that this user has only edited one article, and one article only, and that is this article. Some of the stuff they wrote broke some templates as well from what it looks like. While some of their concerns may be valid, they shouldn't revert 4 times just to fix it. Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 02:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Kindly note that I've undone all my edits where I had removed all the references and quotes from a Business insider article stating opinions about the person, as a logical agreement can't be made on this. Pixiedreamgirl390- (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * from article by . Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf (result: Malformed and really should be at AN/I)
The user called Vif12vf has been hounding me and reverting many of the good-faith edits I made in Wikipedia. I have provided very clear rationale for my edit but the said user persists on reverting my edits without providing a reason. I have even tried to talk to them on their user talk page but the user just deleted my message. They also keep treating my edits as disruptive although thy clearly are not. 223.25.63.112 (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Reporting someone after they remove your talk-page message but don't revert any other edits of yours is not a way to go about! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also sounds like it should be at AN/I/ Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I shall duly rewrite my report at the proper forum. 103.196.139.76 (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be using two IPs to edit, especially not on noticeboards! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:178.66.158.182 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The source says the two plots are "basically the same". Five years after The Wall was aired on national TV, there appears a film called Stargate, whose plot  premise is "basically the same"."
 * 2)  "Provided a reference"
 * 3)  "Read the plot of The Wall."
 * 4)  "You do not even know what WP:UNDUE is about. The source is the plot premise of The Wall."
 * 1)  "You do not even know what WP:UNDUE is about. The source is the plot premise of The Wall."

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

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

Comments:

Besides the clear WP:3RR violation, this IP appears to be the same user as the currently blocked. DonIago (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is clearly block evasion. Re-blocked, last edit reverted, page semi-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:McGregorNZ reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Note: edited while logged out as
 * Evidence: See talk page edits. McGregorNZ: 222.152.255.243:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Undid revision 1178849206 by Furius (talk) to remove incorrect information
 * 2)  Undid revision 1178806847 by Furius (talk) because it was false information
 * 3)  Undid revision 1178662564 by Adakiko
 * 4)  Undid revision 1178687282 by Adakiko
 * 5)  Undid revision 1178687630 by Adakiko (talk)
 * 6)  (continuation) on many occasions, they have debunked the anti-vax movement. Could you also justify calling The Platform 'right-wing' when according to a Curia Market Research April Public Poll (n=1000): 'The Platform had the highest neutral score with 48% of respondents rating them as such.' The Platform did not give priority to white female talkback callers. They gave priority to all female talkback callers.
 * 7)  (No ES)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Adakiko (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * McGregorNZ appears to be a wp:SPA having only edited articles related to Sean Plunket and Plucket's affiliations: Mass media in New Zealand and The Platform (radio station). Gives claims in wp:ES unsupported by locatable sources or citations. Whitewashing article of criticism.
 * McGregorNZ EW while adding apparent promotional content to Mass media in New Zealand:


 * I have invited to discuss his disagreements with us on Talk:The Platform (radio station). I think if we can talk things through, hopefully we can avoid blocking him. Andykatib (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User:AntonSamuel reported by User:Kheo17 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user keeps stubbornly reverting my reliably referenced edits despite having a discussion in his/her talk page and adjusting the edits accordingly.KHE&#39;O (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * KHE&#39;O, it's not entirely clear why you're filing this report immediately after an uninvolved user,, warned you both, and without any edits to the article having happened in between. The last message at Talk:Askeran was written over two years ago. Instead of filing an edit warring report, please create a new section there and describe your proposed changes, with arguments for them. Simply invite to the discussion afterwards with a short message on their talk page (please see). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User:CatmanBw reported by User:Mr.User200 (Result: Blocked 1 month)
Page:

CatmanBw

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13:01 6 October UTC
 * 2) 13:06 6 October UTC
 * 3) 13:13 6 October UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

User previously warned for personal attacks, ANI Mr.User200 (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The user reporting me above has reverted more than 3 times (manually) using sources that don't even mention the claims they were writing down. Later on, they tried to use completely unreliable/unheard of/non-neutral sources to verify the claims that were unverifiable the first time. It is clear disruptive editing, vandalism, and they are also trying to game the system by saying I'm the one who reverted 3 times when they did first. CatmanBw (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs of the reverts you mentioned. Also, your accusations of vandalism are yet another personal attack. Be careful, because you risk being blocked, not necessarily for edit-warring, but for repeated attacks against other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I was referring to the content, not the user.
 * Here you go:
 * (1)
 * (2)
 * (3)
 * (4)
 * (5) CatmanBw (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way. Calling another user's edits vandalism is a personal attack. Saying it's the "content" not the user is a distinction without a difference. And they are not vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. What I meant to say is that the user removed a piece of information, claimed it was original research (when it wasn't); the article cited mentions the information. Then they proceeded to look for different reasons to remove it when it's a valid piece of information. CatmanBw (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Also, if you search |search Mr.User200 reports in the archive, you are gonna find a long history of them being reported for similar behaviour. They were also given many warnings and a final warning before. CatmanBw (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Willbb234 reported by User:Raladic (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Transgender Day of Remembrance */ https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/her-death-sparked-transgender-day-remembrance-22-years-later-still-n1233809 no one has ever been arrested, no motive determined. source suggests that there were other motives such as a fight they got into prior to murder"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1178884984 by Last1in (talk) The RS is a summary of a survey, so report is an entirely reasonable word. I don't see how this is synth?"
 * 3)  "/* Employment discrimination */ don't know why this was reverted before"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Transgender."

Comments:

User appears to be in an edit war and has been warned and reverted by multiple people within the last 3 days. Suggest a topic ban. Raladic (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please explain how dif 1 and 3 are evidence of edit warring. Also, why did you revert my latest edit as "non-constructive", when it's an entirely valid edit backed up by an RS? This is very confusing. Willbb234 13:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Dan69182 reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  Diffs of the user's reverts: , ,

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Dan69182

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow moving edit war in CT/e-e area  // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Chronograph 1985 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1178918465 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1178917645 by StephenMacky1 (talk) here is a PDF of the agreement, go over it. Thanks. If you revert again I will flag the article and take it up with Wikipedia admins."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1178900995 by StephenMacky1 (talk) As per the Prespa agreement, the ethnonym for North Macedonians is in fact "North Macedonian". So if the ethnic term Slavic is in some way inadequate, the edit should then contain "North Macedonian". The Prespa agreement specifically addresses educational material in this regard (of which wikipedia seeks to fulfill and be respected as)"
 * 4)  "More concise language is needed for a very controversial topic settled officially to be encapsulated within very specific language under international law."
 * 5)  "Fixed tag"
 * 6)  "Small edit adding concise language as it was confusing to my students."
 * 1)  "Small edit adding concise language as it was confusing to my students."
 * 1)  "Small edit adding concise language as it was confusing to my students."
 * 1)  "Small edit adding concise language as it was confusing to my students."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring and persistently violating MOS:MAC. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ChatGPT also considers my edit correct following semantics and logic. ChatGPT is a powerful large language model. Again, the sentence does not seem to follow logic when read as "Macedonians do not consider themselves Macedonian". Thank you. Ed 18:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)


 * The identifier “North” should be used in this context to differentiate between the ethnic Greek subgroup of Macedonians and North Macedonians. It wouldn’t make sense for Greeks who consider themselves ethnically Macedonian to believe they are unrelated to ethnic Macedonians. Ed 18:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess North Macedonians on Wikipedia decide what is considered an ethnicity or not. Being ignorant to actual history is not a good look for a wannabe encyclopedia. Ed 21:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronograph 1985 (talk • contribs)

User:KlayCax reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Already blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Analysis */"
 * 2)  "Reverted good faith edit. (Hope this doesn't go over 1 edit max. Apologies if someone previously reverted this. Feel free to revert me if so.) WP:COMMONNAME is Third Intifada; military names have their own section because they don't meet this criteria. Undid revision 1179114123 by Techso01 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Not sure why this was deleted. (If reverted for good reasons write on talk.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict */"
 * 2)   "/* October 2023 Gaza−Israel conflict */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Over 1RR restoring "The events have been termed the Third Intifada" Andre🚐 01:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, . This was an accident. (Since it was a heavily trafficked article and edits were occurring within seconds.) Thanks.
 * That's why I clarified with since I was working on a device. My apologies. KlayCax (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi KlayCax, that doesn't make sense, since you've reverted several times to restore content that was removed. Would you kindly self-revert that? Andre🚐 01:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The first one wasn't a reversion - at least to understanding - but an accidental deletion due to an edit conflict that was occurring due to multiple edits occurring at the same time. I didn't see this as an edit conflict since I assumed this was just accidentally lopped off.
 * The second one was me not noticing it had been reverted. There were many edits going on at the same time due to the rapid, quickfire editing of the article. That's why I mentioned it in the edit summary.
 * The last was a legitimate revert. That is because WP:COMMONNAME terms — frequently used by reliable sources — are generally mentioned in the leads of conflicts. (e.g. I added the common name. I didn't add the military names.)
 * Again, apologies if there was any miscommunication. That's why I wrote in the edit summary that anyone was free to revert if there was a legitimate objection to the edit. (Since I already reverted once.)
 * I didn't see or interpret it as edit warring. (Since I thought there was only one legitimate, intentional reversion.) It was miscommunication between editors in a highly trafficked and rapidly edited article. KlayCax (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Partially blocked for 72 hours. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Kaarush reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked for two weeks under GS/CASTE)
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 Ram Nath Kovind."

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

Edit warring in other articles
 * 1) (Maratha (caste) -.

Comments:

Slow burn edit war by caste POV pusher. Keeps on adding caste (Koli) in a BLP contravening self-identification policy per WP:CASTEID. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Possible sockpuppet, opened an SPI here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I don't think a permalink to a 2012 discussion that once happened on a topic-specific noticeboard with a participation of ~10 users is strong and helpful enough to be cited repeatedly in this way. If there's something in a current policy or guideline about it, just link to that please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well WP:CASTEID is the basis and still cited / enforced consensus in relation to caste in BLPs of Indian nationals, hence why it was discussed in the topic-specific noticeboard. Besides, caste is a contentious topic in the Indian subcontinent, so have to be cautious mentioning it even if we want to disregard that consensus. I see a parallel to the WP:BLPLIST policy, an excerpt from which states - "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.". Ergo, 'self-identification' is necessary in contentious topics. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * under CASTE for long-term edit warring without discussion in this and several other articles in topic area. Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Austin012599 reported by User:148.255.239.229 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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: Austin012599 re-added the terms that are already quite redundant to the pages related to actors who do voice work for numerous animated series despite the fact that it covers live action and voice-over roles. 148.255.239.229 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like 1 revert. You reverted their edit with no explanation or edit summary. They haven't been warned. You haven't attempted to resolve the issue using the talk page. You didn't notify them about this report. --Onorem (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a topic filed under discussion that the term actor covers voice work and apparently the user keeps adding the rather redundant term to the articles he was involved in. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Archive_16#Is_%22voice_actor%22_a_separate_role_from_%22actor%22? 148.255.239.229 (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Editors shouldn't be expected to know about a handful of comments on a WikiProject's 2 1/2 year old archived discussion. In any case, that doesn't make this report any more valid. If you had explained your objection, they might have edited differently. --Onorem (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Semsûrî reported by User:Mrrsnhtl (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Mrrsnhtl

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Mrrsnhtl

Comments:

This user has no relationship whatsoever with my family's village (they've been living there ~1000 years), and keeps gatekeeping, edit-warring over unreliable references, and a complete disregard for the actual villagers from this village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrsnhtl (talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is another report of the same dispute at WP:ANI. Some editors have been trying to explain Wikipedia's policy on legal threats at User talk:Mrrsnhtl, after this comment by Mrrsnhtl which sounds like a threat. It is unusual to suppose that the residents of a village should have control over what is written about them on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:Mrrsnhtl, has now been blocked by User:TParis per the ANI report for making legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

User:PeoplePowerRadio reported by User:WanderingMorpheme (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "At the very least, both sides of the argument should be stated, and ignoring one side of the argument cannot be the argument of a Japanese language scholar. To begin with, Okinawan dialect is not an independent language. If it were to be adapted, the language of all prefectures would not be Japanese."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1179260048 by Pbritti (talk) This is an official statement from Okinawa Prefecture. Check the source properly.It is problematic that you do not include the official announcement from Okinawa Prefecture. In the first place, they do not understand the origins of the Japanese language, and there are large numbers of areas in Japan where the language is even more difficult to understand than in Okinawa. Or rather, the old languag"
 * 3)  "I have not read the source at all. This is an official statement from Okinawa Prefecture. Check the source properly."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Ryukyuan languages."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ryukyuan languages."

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

Comments:

Not Npov and their only source does not support their claims. User looks like they advocate for Japanese nationalist thought.  Wandering  Morpheme   00:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

User:KiharaNoukan reported by User:Makeandtoss (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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: Worth noting that the user in question is a new account, that has barely surpassed 500 edits and 30 days to become an autoconfirmed user, when he started editing articles relating to WP:ARBPIA. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Makeandtoss You removed sourced content that described the Blockade of the Gaza Strip as an Israeli and Egyptian blockade to insert WP:UNDUE POV content on the blockade. Other users had already reverted this in the past.
 * Timestamps very obviously show that you did not attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page before pushing here.
 * Worth noting that you are grossly misrepresenting my account, I have a year on Wikipedia, and over 700 edits. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected as I didn't look at the year. However, my removal is correct; the source mentioned Egyptian restrictions and not blockade, while mentioning Israeli blockade. I am only responsible for my own reverts, one, and not for other users. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just WP:PEDANTRY; if we want to look at sources, the main article of Blockade of the Gaza Strip clearly states that it is an Israeli and Egyptian blockade, and I'm sure that this exact issue has been argued to death there. You changed out a sourced mention of an Egyptian blockade without explanation. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed an unsourced claim, the linked article elaborates in how varying degrees the restrictions are, and does not blame Egypt for turning Gaza into an open-air prison like the Human Rights Watch source blames Israel; a reliably sourced piece of information, which you removed, twice. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If we're really playing word games, the only time the HRW article even mentions "Blockade" is from "Walaa" in the transcripts, unattributed to a specific nation, and appearing to be an interviewee. The article describes Israel's policies as "Israel’s sweeping restrictions". The article describes Egypt's policies as "Egypt’s restrictive policies". I'm not sure how you're divining one side as the exclusive blockader and the other not at all. KiharaNoukan (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Both claims are common in sources and both potentially POV depending on how the prose is phrased. No need to edit war about this. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Replied on article talk page, but generally agree. KiharaNoukan (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Also per the above discussion; this could have all taken place on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comment, please note that this article falls under 1RR, as part of WP:ARBPIA. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct, although I advise you that in the future when making reports on pages with 1RR restrictions that you note that in the report rather than hoping the reviewing admin picks up on that.
 * In any event, per WP:BLOCKP it does not seem like a block would be desirable at this point as Kihara has not continued the edit warring and seems to be willing to work it out on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:C077:B00:BDDD:C11D:62C9:C92D reported by User:Adakiko (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
 * Here 10:16, 8 August 2023
 * or here 09:43, 11 September 2023 depending on one's viewpoint.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Tags: COI template removed
 * 2)  note: two minor edits by two registered editors in this diff
 * 1)  note: two minor edits by two registered editors in this diff
 * 1)  note: two minor edits by two registered editors in this diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Also includes other activity on my part. Anon disclosed that they were part of the abbey's staff and then removed it. See comments below on COI disclosure.

Attempt to discuss on anon's talk page.

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

Comments:

COI disclosure: 2A02:C7C:C077:B00:BDDD:C11D:62C9:C92D disclosed   removing that disclosure  Also, removed the Undisclosed paid at

History: added the unsourced text "acting DoM/ organist"  which I reverted via Huggle at 22:12, 10 Sep. I noticed that it was essentially replaced. I then examined the article and removed 4.3k of unsourced text in six edits and fixed several refs and removed wp:puffery. Some of that content has been there, unsourced, for 10+ years. The anon, on the article talk page, said the unsourced content should remain as they will add sources in the future. Adakiko (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The full /64. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Arequipa belleza (Result: Not even close to an appropriate report)
Page:

User being reported: User:Nikkimaria

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) the first time he reverted my edit on the subject on the Havana page
 * 2) the new draftpage created: Draft:List of people from Havana
 * 3) the discussion: User_talk:Nikkimaria

Comments: Hello, my discussion is that I add a new section of Notable people from Havana in the Havana article, and I add the most relevant people internationally who were born in Havana, the User:Nikkimaria started to reverse it, he told me that I need references for each person, I added more than 40 people and all have their respective wikipedia articles with their references in those articles, making references for each person is going to cost me a lot of time and I do not see it necessary, he told me to make a new page for that section, I accepted and created it but he told me that I should put references for all the names, we discussed in his talkpage, and he told me that he was going to take it to draftpage, I see that putting references for each name, it is not necessary since each article has it, besides I told him that in almost all the articles of people of all the cities and towns published in wikipedia do not have any reference either, and the few that have only one reference in the wikipedia articles, I see that he is doing whatever it is so that I do not put that article, right now it is in draftpage, I need administrators to help me with your answers, thanks for your help.--Arequipa belleza (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Draftifying is not edit warring, and Nikkimaria is female. Please listen to her advice instead of abusing this noticeboard.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

User:197.245.79.58 reported by User:Zefr (Result: Blocked for 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1179500713 by Zefr (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1179492928 by Zefr (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1179490674 by Zefr (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Norton (grape)."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Norton (grape)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Speculation from DNA study */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Speculation from DNA study */ Reply"

Comments:

IP user has added speculative content without explanation, and has not engaged discussion either on the article talk page or the user's page. Suggest a 48 hr block to allow other editors input at Talk:Norton (grape). Zefr (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 36 hours. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

User:JeanGreyForever reported by User:Cinemaniac86 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:As of now, just these two: 1. 2.

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1. *Actor: 2. *Actress:

Diffs of the user's reverts (from Best Actor article): }}Diffs of the user's reverts (from Best Actress article):
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Actor: Actress: (Notice on actress, talk page is askew from some table. Also, a prior issue—with possibly this same user's sockpuppet from one month ago—is why there's a topic there dated back in September. I just expanded upon it for today's dilemma.)

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

Comments: It's very disheartening that not only can constructive edits be attacked with such vitriolic spite, but that users can then be so belligerent to then deflect it upon the other person. Obviously, not everyone is going to agree. But just a month ago, there was the same malicious reverting and disruptive editing done to my constructive edits. And after we had that hiccup, he and I made amends and actually discussed everything, and compromised. He couldn't edit after page protection as an IP-only. He disappeared after actresses were done. A family emergency arose before I finished the actors, but finally I did. Now a new edit-warring reverter arrives in much the same fashion. The strangest comment to me was their edit comment on their most recent revision: "Very rude and entitled. Warned by other users about them now." And what they said on their talk page after I attempted to be friendly and see if we can work together to find common ground:
 * You are some king or queen that you rule those Oscar pages? The audacity that you claim you have not heard back from me in a few hours so you are going ahead to change the page to restore some vision of yours? Like I am at your beck and call and your servant?
 * I have no time to talk to you. Not gonna discuss with someone so rude and ill-mannered. Do not mess with people's edits or we will complain and have you reported. Good day. JeanGreyForever (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not care for their belligerence, but the bigger issue is I should NOT be threatened like that. That is uncalled for. All of their comments, attitudes, and demeanor, from the user summaries to responses are nothing but ill-mannered bullying, and I just would like something to be done about it. Thank you. --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 15:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * . While there is edit warring there is no 3RR violation; a series of consecutive edits, as in the "Best Actor" list above, counts as a single revert (see WP:3RR: A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. That said, they've made 2 reverts on each article and their incivility is problematic. User:Ohnoitsjamie has warned the editor about the incivility and while they've been given the edit warring templates, I've given them a warning against further edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

User:217.195.251.12 reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "it obviously isn't the heading that makes the indiscriminate collection of trivia problematic."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1179594975 by Yoshi24517 (talk) IT WAS NOT UNEXPLAINED. I LEFT VERY CLEAR EDIT SUMMARIES. This is obviously some kind of coordinated trolling now."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1179594370 by JPxG (talk) read the edit summaries"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1179594028 by Raydann (talk) oh great, another disruptive editor who also left a dishonest message on my talk page"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1179553183 by That'sHedley (talk) reverted disruptive editor"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

5 reverts despite multiple editors disagreeing. Also made a couple minor personal attacks, called multiple editors disruptive in this edit and this edit as well as calling another editor incompetent.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 04:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I gave 217.195 a hard time about this, so I will give you one too: is it really too much to ask that people open a thread on the talk page for stuff like this instead of mashing the revert button? jp×g 04:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Nobody in fact disagreed with my edit. They simply reverted it for no reason at all, or for false reasons, such as this reporting user Yoshi24517 falsely claiming that it was unexplained. I explained it, of course, and when it was first reverted without any clear reason by a recently-created account, I explained it further, with links to policies and guidelines. Sadly but entirely predictably, aggressive editors who hate IP addresses then piled on to revert repeatedly, without ever giving any convincing rationale. 217.195.251.12 (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Six reverts in just a couple of hours. 3RRNO doesn't apply to these, so "why" doesn't beat "how many and how quickly" here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Not true. You just want to delete the previous content. Report me and wait resolution. Undid revision 1179654338 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 2)  "I responded to you. Stop deleting content. Undid revision 1179654113 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1179653935 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1179653728 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1179653528 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1179653388 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 7)  "Again, stop deleting content. Undid revision 1179653217 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 8)  "Fine, then wait the resolution. Stop deleting content. Undid revision 1179652993 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 9)  "Then report and wait. Undid revision 1179652800 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 10)  "I'm not. Undid revision 1179652573 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 11)  "Your new version is incorrect and imprecise, the previous one is much more complete and supported by Sources. Undid revision 1179652286 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 12)  "I'm not. You are deleting content without consensus. Undid revision 1179651928 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 13)  "It is sourced material. Undid revision 1179650099 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 14)  "I'm not. Unjustifiable removal of content. Undid revision 1179649397 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 15)  "Unjustifiable removal of content.. Undid revision 1179648998 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 16)  "That doesn't change the fact the new version is less accurate."
 * 1)  "Unjustifiable removal of content.. Undid revision 1179648998 by Barjimoa (talk)"
 * 2)  "That doesn't change the fact the new version is less accurate."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also edit warring on Spaniards Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * CU-blocked by .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Pehlivanmeydani reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1179596917 by Nswix (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1179596894 by Nswix (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1179589665 by Nswix (talk) He is not Russian or Bahranian. He is AVAR"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1179589364 by Nswix (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1179589433 by Nswix (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1179589364 by Nswix (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1179589433 by Nswix (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1179589364 by Nswix (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1179589433 by Nswix (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

I am not involved in this dispute. Between this user and User:Nswix over MOS:ETHNICITY. On reported page and a few other pages. Seawolf35 (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

U can t ignore all Caucasian peoples. Nswix is only Russian nationalist. Russia is not only the Russian nation. There is nothing wrong with the nationality of all the wrestlers I have written. Russian sources are available for all of them. Akhmed Tazhudinov and all other wrestlers now are participating for Bahrain, all of them AVAR, not Russian or Bahrain. Russia is only a geographical location, not a nation for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pehlivanmeydani (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is duplicated by, or redundant to, Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

User:98.122.7.213 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 2)  "/* Tropical Storm Philippe */"
 * 3)  "/* Tropical Storm Philippe */"
 * 4)  "/* Tropical Storm Philippe */"
 * 5)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 6)  "/* Tropical Storm Philippe */"
 * 7)  "/* Tropical Storm Philippe */"
 * 8)  "/* Seasonal summary */"
 * 9)  "/* Seasonal summary */"
 * 10)  "/* Tropical Storm Philippe */"
 * 11)  "/* Tropical Storm Philippe */"
 * 12)  "/* Tropical Storm Philippe */"
 * 13)  "/* Seasonal summary */"
 * 14)  "/* Seasonal summary */"
 * 15)  "/* Seasonal summary */"
 * 16)  "/* Season effects */"
 * 17)  "/* Season effects */"
 * 18)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 19)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 20)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 21)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 22)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 23)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 1)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 2)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 3)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 4)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 5)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 6)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 1)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 2)  "/* Storm names */"
 * 3)  "/* Storm names */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP simply does not get it; as the proponent of the content in question the onus is on them to start the discussion. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

User:EconomicEngineer reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "I wrote more information to the page. I wrote that historical presidents consumed the topic of the page and I gave examples."
 * 2)  "I wrote additional information to the page like fictional characters smoke cigars and historical people such as Al Capone smoke cigars."
 * 3)  "I wrote more detailed information to the page. I wrote that countries have national laws that prohibit minors from purchasing tobacco products."
 * 4)  "I wrote more information to the page by writing that countries have national smoking ages ."
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cigar."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also note the edit with which was 2 days ago and thus not included in this report. The report does, however, include an obvious IP edit, which is a revert because of the earlier undoing of the AcademicGenius11 edit.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Pyrrho the Skipper reported by User:Atinoua (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   04:10, 12 October 2023‎ Pyrrho the Skipper "Talk page consensus to remove "often" following 3O"
 * 2)   04:14, 12 October 2023‎ Pyrrho the Skipper "The CIA extraction is being conflated with an WP:EXCEPTIONAL conspiracy claim. Consensus to remove on talk page 3O"
 * 3)   04:33, 12 October 2023‎ Pyrrho the Skipper "As is stated on the talk page, one more revert from you will be your third and then you will be edit warring. This conspiracy theory is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, this not a npov issue"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  04:26, 12 October 2023‎ Atinoua "There is no consensus yet. The source for the CIA claim is considered reliable and must be included on the basis of WP:NPOV. Please continue on the talk page to prevent edit warring"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  05:25, 12 October 2023‎ Atinoua

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 06:36, 12 October 2023‎ Atinoua "Required Notification regarding possible violation of Wikipedia's policy"

Comments:

There are claims from this user of a consensus being reached, and accusations that I am edit warring, yet the only consensus with relation to this conflict is the user I am reporting agreeing with what another user had written.

Another thing I need to mention is that although there are 3 reverts listed, there technically are only 2. 1 of the reverts is broken into 2 individual reverts. Atinoua (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

User:ImSoCool1033 reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted edit by Blaze Wolf"
 * 2)  "Reverted edit by Blaze Wolf"
 * 3)  "Reverted edit by Blaze Wolf"
 * 4)  "Reverted edit by MusikBot II &  "
 * 5)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 6)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 7)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 8)  "Adding  "
 * 9)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 10)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 11)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 12)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 13)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 14)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 1)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 2)  "/* Mascot */"
 * 3)  "/* Mascot */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has continued edit warring on the page adding unsourced info that appears to merely be trivia. POssibly a sock given their first edit was reverting someone, and a blocked user with a similar name on that same page made a similar edit being ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze&#95;&#95;wolf 19:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . That's a lot of edit warring and disruption for an account that is two hours old, and blanking ANEW after they were reported did not help their case. Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's why I thought they may have been a sock. NOt going to pursue that path but anyone else is free to if they wish. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze&#95;&#95;wolf 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

User:88.202.254.237 reported by User:WindTempos (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1179779543 by WindTempos (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1179779210 by WindTempos (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1179779000 by Amanda A. Brant (talk)"
 * 4)  "Accurate description of organisation"
 * 1)  "Accurate description of organisation"
 * 1)  "Accurate description of organisation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. FiLiA (HG) (3.4.10)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor repeatedly reverts to a less-than-NPOV version that only cites the organisation's own website, removing vast amounts of sourced content. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 11:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * for 31 hours by Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Indagate reported by User:Fma12 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments: User reverted my edit 3 times stating in the edit summary: "content added seperates the note from the content unnecessarily". I went to his talkpage to ask him for a valid (and further) explanation and tried to search a consensus to avoid an edit war between us. He opened a case on Template talk:Mattel where he replied me based on personal points of view about what a template should look like instead of WP MOS.

In the template discussion I gave him examples of other templates with similar edits/changes than Mattel's, such as Template:Hasbro and Template:Dodge, and citing an example (Template:Chevrolet vehicles) where the changes I had made were supressed after a consensus (see here - "rebadge notes" section) when other editor preferred to call to a debate instead of reverting anything. That's the way I consider things should be done here to avoid unnecessary conflicts I also decided to accept some of the reasons he gave me, making him a proposal for a minimum change, but he also refused to accept, always based on his personal opinion about what. It's impossible to reach an agreement with an editor that shows a total lack of collaboration and makes things so hard. Fma12 (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2023‎ (UTC)


 * The best way to "avoid an edit war" is not to revert. The second paragraph of Special:Diff/1179851010 is correct; conduct discussion is unsuitable for the template's talk page. When I read "total lack of collaboration", I didn't expect the reported user to be the person who actually started the discussion on the template's talk page.
 * You need a third opinion or an RfC, I'd say, not page protection or blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's inaccurate and misleading to say I "refused to accept" and "based on personal opinion" your "proposal for a minimum change" when I cited a MOS (MOS:SMALLTEXT in my response to that. I have tried to discuss the content issue collaboratively. Indagate (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Hero7373 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I suggest you stop removing sourced content and vandalising the page"
 * 2)  "Beautifully sourced"
 * 3)  "Improvement. Undid revision 1179962805 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 4)  "Added other contexts according to the article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Despite the 3R warning that they received from another editor (their second in a week), they refuse to seek consensus for their changes per WP:ONUS (that they have been asked to read twice) and keep casting aspersions (describing my edits as vandalism), just like they did on Talk:Demographics_of_Morocco (where their edit warred for no reason whatsoever and left the discussion). Talking to them and treating them with respect is obviously a waste of time and their edit (which adds the word "battle" to the lead) is clearly just another attempt at circumventing the RfC result about "war cry". M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * In case a CU sees this, I have now opened a SPI as I suspect that they are socking (please see Sockpuppet_investigations/Hero7373). M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

User:The ed17 reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Informed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (Article under strict 1RR regulation, as clearly indicated to anyone editing it)
 * 1) 16:34 13 October
 * 2) 20:03 13 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A flagrant case of violating the strict 1RR under WP:ARBPIA (deleting the same content twice in six hours) and refusing to self-revert. Even after I warned the user they had violated 1RR, their only reply was to deny it and dare me to file a report here  Jeppiz (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a look, currently checking formal awareness. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I neither denied nor dared? This is a difference in the interpretation of what a "revert" is; from my perspective, I removed a sentence this morning for not being supported by its accompanying citations, then undid Jeppiz's revert of my edit. If others see it differently, no qualms. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I read it as you daring me to take it here, but I believe you that you did not intend that. The 1RR violation is as clear as it gets though. You have been here for many years already; removing the exact same content twice is a violation. Jeppiz (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , the removal of content added less than 24 hours ago can be reasonably seen as a revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing content is not necessarily a revert, and please remember to assume good faith. I see, I missed that the sentence in question had been added recently enough for it to be a revert. I'll self-revert now as best I can, given intervening edits. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's kind but not required in this case, as described below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * can't be forced to restore content as a volunteer who is legally responsible for the content they (re-)add to Wikipedia. The reported user has also never been formally alerted about the restriction, which generally is a requirement ( / ). If there is proof about having been aware and knowingly ignoring the restriction, that proof should be brought by the reporter, and then perhaps at WP:AE.
 * I'll place  on 's talk page and close this for now. The lack of an intention to revert twice (while actually reverting twice) makes a formal logged warning seem unnecessary at this time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Pocket Noodle reported by User:WikiOriginal-9 (Result: Page protected. Update: Pocket Noodle checkuser blocked.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1179897331 by WikiOriginal-9 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1179896958 by WikiOriginal-9 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Please do not add unfererenced claims. WP:V"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Re.

User WikiOriginal-9 is attempting to add "facts" to the article which are not supported by references. This is not true. I have checked the references, and they do not verify the facts claimed. Even basic facts. Their addition claims, "Joseph Boyse (14 January 1660"). That is not verified by their references. The user is adding unverified claims. 04:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocket Noodle (talk • contribs)

Admins might note that logged-out users are reverting with an IP.





Pocket Noodle (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Since there was not a specific warning on the talk page about edit warring before filing this report, I have posted one now at User talk:Pocket Noodle. I also added a reply there to clarify which reference contained that information (i.e., to explain what reference was "the listed DNB ref from Wikisource"). Also, note that Pocket Noodle made two more reverts of the article at 4:46 and 5:40 – after Pocket Noodle commenting on this report at 4:35. SilverLocust 💬 06:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * . There's a lot of reverting from a lot of parties. Discuss it on talk. Aoidh (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Pocket Noodle as a CU-confirmed sock.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the full protection you added to the article can be removed as the only disruptive editor there has been blocked.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected for WP:BEANS reasons. Unprotected, and thanks for the heads up. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

User:AzorzaI reported by User:Botushali (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's edits/reverts: From order of newest to oldest:
 * 1)  12/10/2023
 * 2)  11/10/2023
 * 3)  10/10/2023
 * 4)  14/08/2023
 * 5)  03/08/2023
 * 6)  03/08/2023
 * 7)  02/08/2023
 * 8)  01/08/2023
 * 9)  16/07/2023
 * 10)  15/07/2023
 * 11)  12-13/07/2023
 * 12)  11/07/2023
 * 13)  11/07/2023
 * 14)  10/07/2023
 * 15)  10/07/2023
 * 16)  10/07/2023
 * 17)  10/07/2023

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1. - I initiated this one when I overhauled the article with new sources and rewrote the lead based on those sources. 2. 3. 4.

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

Comments:

I am reporting AzorzaI for slow edit-warring over an article which has lasted three months now. Although this has risen from a content dispute and should've been dealt with using the tools given to editors to solve content disputes, AzorzaI has gone beyond that. Azor was blocked by admin User:ToBeFree on the 16th of August 2023 for edit-warring on a number of articles, including Andrea II Muzaka (which is the focus article of this report) -. Nonetheless, Azor is back and is edit-warring over the same exact points in the article as before, and keeps reverting without coming to either a consensus or agreement on the TP despite the ongoing conversation there. Azor has been warned about contentious topics - - yet still edit wars over the same exact aspects of the article for months on end.

Multiple discussions have been held on the TP which have not gone in Azor's favour. I have mentioned WP:DROPTHESTICK to them among other policies, and despite the fact that sources back up what Azor doesn't like within the lead, they constantly attempt to change it. The result is a cyclical, non-ending set of discussions over the same exact issues in which Azor attempts to change content they simply don't agree with despite the fact that it is sourced, and provides very nonsensical and invalid arguments. All the while, Azor repeatedly reverts or changes content despite the ongoing discussions without any consensus or approval from fellow editors whatsoever.

Furthermore, Azor continues to misuse Wikipedia policies (something else which they were warned about - ), in this case namely WP:PUFFERY. I have asked them to actually read WP:PUFFERY and a number of policies but seemingly to no avail.

Finally, on top of this slow, gruelling and unending cycle of edit warring and unending discussion, Azor doesn't show a willingness to cooperate or at the very least understand. In spite of the sources I have provided, Azor accuses me of "whining" and throwing "immense puffery on this historical figure"  as well as casting WP:ASPERSIONS that I am trying to "fit an agenda into this article"  despite me using RS bibliography to dictate what I have written. There's also a general incivility, too - "Next time you choose to write here - be constructive." .

I am a volunteer on Wikipedia. I am not obliged to continue these constant cycles of edit-warring, reverting and pointless TP discussions where the other participant refuses to listen to both policies and RS bibliography. This has gone beyond a basic content dispute and has turned into edit-warring that has lasted for three months now. Azor's behaviour should be dealt with appropriately by the admins. Botushali (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I'll let someone else review this, though, as I had blocked before and the situation isn't simple enough to just re-block one side indefinitely without much thought. For example, seems to have made numerous reverts at Special:PageHistory/Andrea_II_Muzaka and also has an edit warring block in the log. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. Indeed, I have made numerous reverts to restore the page back to its RS-supported version, as have other editors. My block for edit warring was quite some time ago, but I like to think that I have learnt from it. Botushali (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not really a "long edit-war", more of a series of separate content disputes. The subject of the dispute is not the same throughout, so it's not the same edit-war, as misleadingly spun by Botushali. Second, Botushali has unclean hands and appears to be trying to WP:GAME the system to get rid of an unwanted opponent. It takes two to edit-war, and Botushali is just as guilty if not more . Also Botushali complaining of being the victim of incivility while at the same time using inflammatory edit summaries such as "Your obsession with obstructing the historical reality of this situation is quite disruptive to the article." is a bit rich. Probably the best solution here is to protect the article and have the users hash it out in the talkpage. Khirurg (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hashing it out on the TP is what I've been trying to do for three months to no avail, as somebody won't WP:DROPTHESTICK. The diffs centre around the lead, which has been the topic of conversation for a constant set of disputes lasting three months now. There were other content disputes preceding this on the same article. I don't appreciate you casting WP:ASPERSIONS on me trying to "WP:GAME the system" and suggest you retract that statement. Botushali (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read the talkpage discussion at Talk:Andrea_II_Muzaka and I'm not impressed with your efforts to reach a consensus. Azor's comments are more constructive and consensus seeking. By Hashing it out on the TP is what I've been trying to do for three months to no avail, you mean with comments such as Your edit does not improve the article. The lead was fine as is. We’ve had multiple discussions here about the same things, and you have already been sanctioned for slow edit-warring. I will be reverting to the version that has stood for a while now, because your proposed changes serve no real purpose. I suggest you refrain from continuing the same behaviours that got you blocked in the first place.? All is see in comments such as this is WP:STONEWALLing (The lede was fine as is), doubling down (I will be reverting..., and taunting about past blocks (you have already been sanctioned for slow edit-warring). Not exactly how one should go about reaching a consensus. Khirurg (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is my reply to the fourth TP discussion surrounding the same topic. According to Wiki policy, I am not obliged to engage in the same motionless discussions over and over again. Quite frankly, it’s tiring and turns people off of editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps you’ll be more impressed if you take a look at the other three talk page discussions… Botushali (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I looked at those as well. You literally started the first discussion with I suggest refraining from making any changes to the new lead I have written. Is this your idea of going about getting consensus? By telling users not to touch what you have written? Imagine trying to reach a consensus with someone telling you not to "make any changes to the new lead I have written". Yeah, that must be exhausting all right. WP:OWN, WP:STONEWALL. Khirurg (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You shouldn’t cherry-pick parts out of the TP discussion to portray whatever it is you’re trying to get across. Anyways, rather than proceed to make sarcastic and instigating comments, it would probably be best to leave it to the admins to decide how to proceed. Botushali (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have resisted any effort to let others improve the lead, not just me. In this edit here, you revert another user who believes the lead breaches NPOV. Your response? The usual: "That's not an improvement. It is neutral as it is.". Which changes have ever been accepted on the article by me or other users? Absolutely nothing. You have resisted every contribution made to improve this article and to seek consensus. If I have been "edit warring", then so have you. But unlike you, I try to be as constructive as possible. if I know someone struggle to see the NPOV, I don't go on with the usual "No improvement" or "It is good as it is". --Azor (talk). 06:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That was a copy of your edit from a user (who has regular content disputes with me) who failed to elaborate on the TP what was supposedly a violation of NPOV. More of a fly-by revert.
 * I’ve answered your concerns multiple times, and regarding Marko, I recently told you which 3 or 4 sources describe Muzaka’s military campaigns against him. You just refuse to listen to reason and actually accept the sources, hence why I’ve decided to report you. It’s beyond a content dispute when you blatantly ignore what sources have to say. Botushali (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In another edit, you revert the same user who has concerns with the lack of NPOV. These are genuine concerns, not "fly by reverts" which you now attempt to use as a justification for your reverts. As for the part about Marko's role, we had a third opinion in our TP discussion: ".. the recognition of Muzaka by Palaiologos is directly related to his activity against Vukašin". Notice how you totally ignored the third party, but still went on to discuss with me. Am I really the one who "refuse to listen"? --Azor (talk). 07:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What does that third opinion have to do with Marko’s own conflicts with Muzaka? does not invalidate four sources talking about separate military campaigns against Marko - all of which you choose to ignore. You are twisting people’s comments. Perhaps you should ask Maleschreiber directly on the relevant TP what he thinks about Marko rather than falsifying things that they never claimed on a notice board regarding edit-warring.
 * That’s right - I reverted the same user as before on one separate line that has nothing to do with what your constant debates have been centred around. That diff makes it appear as though that user had all those concerns, which is incorrect. The only change they made was, and that simply wasn’t a positive change as principalities were literally invaded and Albania in that case is a geographical term.
 * Rather than trying to turn this back to a content dispute, why do you keep changing the lead over the course of three months despite having no consensus or support to do so? Botushali (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If you pay attention to my edit on the lead, you will see that I never said anything Marko's historical role - until the third opinion expressed an opinion. From the start, I used the term "Mrnjavčević family" to fit all opinions. The third opinion is the one who insisted Vukasin's son Marko had no role in this event, so I have no clue why you are bringing up that discussion with me. That is something you should have discussed with the third party, instead of ignoring it. My main concern with the lead was related to its undue weight (the same concern other users has expressed which you chose you to revert), as already explained. --Azor (talk). 09:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also noticing how you are now using terms such as "campaign", instead of the current version's "wars/victories". Note that you have previously fully reverted an editor's attempt to use the term "campaign" for the sake of NPOV. Hopefully, you are finally seeing the unnecessary puffery in the lead. Anyways, I have said what I wanted to say. The admins can take it from here. --Azor (talk). 09:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Puffery would be saying “glorious victories of the amazing Andrea II Muzaka” or something along those lines, you are citing puffery incorrectly. I RV’ed that edit because it’s a big change that was not discussed on the TP in an article with a rather volatile history. One word wasn’t changed there, multiple were. Botushali (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed the term here, and only the term. In your following edit, you reverted that, among other things. --Azor (talk). 10:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The “third opinion” did not say anything about Marko, a figure whose involvement you’ve been skeptical of despite the sources used. You are putting words in their mouth. Also, the issue with the use of Mrnjavčević here is that Andrea II defeated only two particular members of the family, it pays off to be more precise.
 * There is nothing undue, as there is no differing perspective according to academic sources. You have brought absolutely zero sources to the discussion aside from your own theories and ideas, yet you continue to edit war over the same concepts even after three months. At what point will it stop? Botushali (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I use "absolutely zero sources"? Do you even read what I write in the TP?; I suggest you read the same source me and Maleschreiber have read, then it might give more sense to you. Let me know if you need me to cite it. Cheers. I got zero reply on that statement from you. I was planning on just letting the admins take it from here, but I am not gonna have you throw false accusations at me on purpose. --Azor (talk). 10:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are yet to present the source, and somehow you are saying that Maleschreiber has read the same source even though you haven’t cited it yet? How’s that work? Botushali (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to discuss this forever at the noticeboard? If admins ask for RS or elaboration, I will present it to them. All I am asking from you is to not throw accusations out of thin air. --Azor (talk). 11:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Per the above you should really consider WP:DR/N. Or something other than this page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

==User:2A02:B127:8013:E1B8:8C69:387D:3630:C411/User:2a02:b123:f06:f80b:2101:2dd2:2cbb:e13d/User:2a02:b125:8f05:90ba:c07e:fb5:358c:dc40 reported by User:Dominikcapuan (Result: Semiprotection) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * As
 * 1) 8:00, 9 Octrober 2023
 * 2) 18:41, 10 October 2023


 * As
 * 1) 13:41, 12 October 2023
 * 2) 13:41, 12 October 2023


 * As
 * 1) 20:59, 13 October 2023
 * 2) 21:09, 13 October 2023
 * 3) 21:31, 13 October 2023

In total, since it is the same person, it break the 3RR for seven times

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  The user has been warned in all three languages he vandalises (en.wiki, en.wiki, fr.wiki)

Comments:

For more than a week now, a series of IPs (traceable to the same person given the chronology) have been vandalising this page (as well as the Italian and French versions), citing pre-production data as the cause, disregarding the most recent and reliable news published by the show's production studio itself. The user was also warned via the talk page, in all three languages, but as a response he changes his IP and starts the vandalism again. Dominikcapuan (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Result: The page Drag Race Italia (season 3) has been semiprotected for two weeks. The IP continues to revert from multiple addresses while never posting on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Crypto Cabal reported by User:Favonian (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Talk page !!!!!!!! X2 !!!!!!!!"
 * 2)  "TALK PAGE !!!!!!!!!!!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1180086311 by AndyTheGrump (talk)"
 * 4)  "take it to the talk page pleae"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Gives every indication of being a troll. Favonian (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup. See their entire editing history. Already reported at WP:AIV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Now blocked as WP:NOTHERE by SFR. Tails   Wx  12:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * why can't u edit talk pages? Crypto Cabal (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Sharonzuke reported by User:XOR'easter (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: since the editor appears to be here for no purpose other than to shill for a fringe journal and complain about Wikipedia, continuing to do so after being warned, opening a thread on the article's Talk page seemed like a waste of time.

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

Comments:

SPA with a history of edit-warring and POV-pushing, including a block in 2017. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a long-term SPI. Nothing productive comes out of their editing Wikipedia, especially when they won't engage in any discussion. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

User:NaseebaLatheef reported by User:Belbury (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NaseebaLatheef&diff=prev&oldid=1179254256

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow edit warring the peacock phrase "regarded as one of the greatest actors of all time" into Mammootty and Mammootty filmography.

They've been explicitly asked twice to stop doing this, the second time at great length just a couple of days ago. Belbury (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Endorse block: I was just starting a thread at WP:AN/I regarding this very issue. I am involved in the Mammootty topic, and thus can not act. However, if I were not involved, I would block for slow burn edit warring and refusal to engage on any article talk page or on their user talk page. They've done this six times and have been reverted by three different editors. The user is effectively insisting they are right, and everyone else is wrong. The last block was for 72 hours. I endorse that block, and endorse a new block at least for a week. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Jweismuller reported by User:Sariel Xilo (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Edit war is focused on removing Cinemark in the Infobox ("Distributed by") and at other points

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 11:39, 3 October 2023 "Only AMC is distributor not Cinemark stated before"
 * 12:10, 3 October 2023 "Removed cinemark as distributor"
 * 14:45-14:47, 3 October 2023 Range of edits
 * 01:33, 12 October 2023 "The concert movie is ONLY distributed by AMC and not Cinemark"
 * 13:52, 15 October 2023 "Fixed distributor. AMC is the only distributor. Cinemark is not a distributor"
 * 06:48, 16 October 2023 "Have changed the distributor part several times referering to articles that AMC is the only distributor"
 * 12:47-12:48, 16 October 2023 "Still wrong on distributors. Please refer to facts"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 3 October 2023 Warning on edit-warring
 * 2) 12 October 2023 Warning on edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour

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

Comments:

Editor (who appears to a single-purpose account) has continued to remove one of the film's distributors multiple times after being warned and asked to engaged with consensus process on the talk page. Not a CheckUser so I'm not sure if this is related but IP editors were also doing the same which led to the page being protected; subsequently, the talk page has had several "semi-protected edit requests" asking for the second distributor to be removed. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1011:B07F:44B3:D9F4:E86:847:BDAF reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

IP appears to be doing the same thing at Racial policy of Nazi Germany see, , , and. Probable continuing edit warring from 2600:1011:B019:B136:D88F:4792:B795:3FD6 where their edits were reverted. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

User:72.69.179.21 reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "All of it is sorted from higher education and from your own state sponsor propaganda. Your purposeful conclusion of truth, bot like nature, improper actings are harming the community. You are harming future generations from learning their history. You are a threat to the wikipedia (and American founded idea) as a proud Canadian bot.  Here's your reference again, but since you're a bot, you can't click (I have trackers bud) https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-sacking-of-york"
 * 2)  "You're a disruptive user, I officially reported you for suspect behavior and I have solid evidence to state you a propaganda bot along with a few others on this matter. You're insulted that you were outed and acting improperly, against truth , agasint community guidelines, and immature to the point of necessitating admin removal ."
 * 3)  "Yes, Leventio, you need to explain why you are fixated on rewriting factual history to skew a state sponsor of propaganda for the elcit purpose of misinformation. I provided references and yet your automated artificial self cannot compute why your own reference material state CANADA suffered a humiliating loss to the Americans. A factual historical event that lead to the burning of the USA White House. Please explain in talk why you contributed 40% to the article as a bot ."
 * 4)  "Leventio, you're a disruptive user and factually acting like a propaganda BOT . Your own BIASED Canadian encyclopedia states top line : A crushing defeat for the British in the War of 1812, the sacking of York began on the morning of 27 April 1813. REF: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-sacking-of-york. Your edit and contributions are suspect and will be removed from this article for acting as a BOT and state sponsor of propaganda with explicit goals of misinformation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Editorialized content and name */ ce" - latest revision on talk page at time of report

Comments:

4 reverts possibly many, many, MANY more, personal attacks, calling everybody a bot, thinks we are pushing "propaganda". No response on talk page with discussion.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 22:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

User:EggRoll97 reported by User:PaulGamerBoy360 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Do not remove copyright violation templates."
 * 2)  "Added tags to the page using Page Curation (copyvio-revdel)"
 * 3)  "Nominated page for deletion using Page Curation (speedy deletion-copyright violation)"

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

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

Comments:
 * This is not more than 3 reverts, and it also falls under WP:3RRNO exception number 5. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted. However, EggRoll, I think you're stretching number 5 there. I read it as applying to the allegedly copyvio material itself, not the notification templates. And to be fair there was a valid dispute as to whether the material was an actual copyvio. Once someone posted the link to the mirror site, you should have opened further discussion on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Pisarz12345 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Blocked six months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism */"
 * 1)  "/* Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism */"
 * 1)  "/* Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism */"
 * 1)  "/* Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Deacon."
 * , immediately preceding latest block for edit warring
 * , immediately preceding first block for edit warring

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

Comments:

Please note that the same user has been repeatedly warned and blocked for their edit warring, failure to respond to requests for comment, and failure to communicate in edit summaries. Pbritti (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please also see the contents of a recent ANI filing against this user here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

User:UA0Volodymyr reported by User:Mellk (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 17:44, 4 October 2023‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:30, 4 October 2023‎
 * 2) 18:34, 4 October 2023‎
 * 3) 18:45, 4 October 2023‎
 * 4) 11:49, 17 October 2023‎
 * 5) 12:20, 17 October 2023‎
 * 6) 12:34, 17 October 2023‎
 * 7) 12:38, 17 October 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:

UA0Volodymyr has received plenty of warnings already for disruptive editing and making edits in violation of WP:RUSUKR (while not extended-confirmed). After they became extended-confirmed today, they decided to return to those articles to resume edit warring. Mellk (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please stop deny and try to legalize Russian military aggression and occupation, even if Ukrainian or/and Crimean language(s) nominally listed as official in documents of occupational administrations and if we even list it in infobox those administrations they should be marked as they are. Stop playing along with Russian officialdom and start call things by their proper names - war is war, military aggression is military aggression, illegal seizing of territories by this is military occupation. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor also received a CT alert for EE. Mellk (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And they are continuing to edit war on another article even after this report rather than starting a talk page discussion. Mellk (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Sevastopol. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Joscokkh88 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: A look at this page Knanaya also shows this SPA is willing to edit war to get their preferred version of the article.-- VViking Talk Edits 16:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Dwlat suri reported by User:Aintabli (Result: Blocked at SPI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1180611863 by Aintabli (talk) (rv, block evasion)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1180611553 by Aintabli (talk) (rv, block evasion)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1180610711 by HistoryofIran (talk)  (rv, block evasion)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1179571332 by HistoryofIran (talk) edit warring and personal attacks in edit summary"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit-warring with troll edit summaries, mirroring HistoryofIran's revert. (Also reported by HistoryofIran on Sockpuppet investigations/Walamba.kana.) Aintabli (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

User:OneWordWonder reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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: Over the last 10 days, user has engaged in edit warring a living persons article by reverting to their preferred version. User refuses to follow WP:BLP and returns contentious information about a living person I tried every channel of communication, including talk page, where another user has voiced their concerns, and dispute admin noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1180222772) but user has refused to engage in consensus building and prefers to revert to their preferred version.

Other users have been suspicious of OneWordWonder's activities because they are similar to sockpuppet accounts of FobTown.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FobTown)

this behavior has been demonstrated in other articles. (refuses talk page and immediately reverts to preferred version) 2022 Asian Games: Revision history (5 reverts over ~ last 8 days) Unit 731(3 reverts over ~ 3 days) Lin Yuwei (5 reverts over ~9 days)

I started a talk page in each article, but user refuses to engage in consensus building.
 * from article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Ottomanor reported by User:Karl Oblique (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1180725364 by 77.137.68.107 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1180713538 by 2001:B07:645F:1A00:B991:91D5:4B7B:62A8 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1180699097 by Cmsparks (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

pushing POV and editwarring. K. Oblique 13:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

User:‎80.3.192.137 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (reverted by the user) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] Comments: The user went to 3RR in the same day, then I started the talk page discussion, where their contribution was not constructive. They apparently have their own interpretation of WP:V which reads "If I see a text which I do not like and which is unsourced, I might remove it immediately without any attempts to source it, to check it validity, or even to mark it as unsourced first, and I will edit-war to death if people try to restore the text". Reminds me of some LTA, but I do not remember which one.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)


 * Ymblanter is, it seems to me, being deliberately disruptive. I removed some text which was badly written, trivial, and uncited. Ymblanter put it right back, exactly as it was. I removed it, again pointing out that it was incoherent and uncited. They said "correct, and you are welcome to cite it yourself. Since then, I have repeatedly pointed out to them that The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. (emphasis as in the source page). They know this already, obviously - they are an administrator, and I do not believe any administrator could be so unfamiliar with one of the most important content policies. So why would an administrator who knows a policy do the exact opposite of what it says, and repeatedly restore unverifiable material to an article, without providing a reliable source? 80.3.192.137 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is pretty much the confirmation of what I have written above. Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's WP:BKFIP. Blocked.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of this LTA. This now makes sense. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Turtle.aviation reported by User:Rjjiii (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Adding a image"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on ATR 72."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing."

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

Comments:

This user has added several images of aircraft to the commons. All of their edits on Wikipedia are placing those images (some with massive watermarks obscuring most of the plane) at the tops of articles above existing infoboxes and edit-warring to keep them in the lead. They have made no response on any talk pages. Rjjiii (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: Similar behavior is starting on Boeing 737. Rjjiii  (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)  04:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is possible the user has realized what they're doing and stopped. If it resumes, things will be different. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

User:85.251.23.136 reported by User:Zmbro (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Year-end charts */ I am corroborating information"
 * 2)  "/* Year-end charts */ I'm pretty tired of doing this, but hey, it seems like someone is trying to impose what they think is correct or not, I am dedicated to correcting data, and I'm going to please ask that instead of continuing to change my corrections. Whoever is doing that should look for better information, and see that in 1973 the best-selling album was Aladdin Sane, well, you don't have to be a genius to know that, well, I'm very serious, you don't have to question my work."
 * 3)  "In the Wikipedia article British Music in 1973, Aladdin Sane appears as the best-selling album of the year, in the section of all the top 1 albums in the United Kingdom, Aladdin Sane appears as the best-selling album of the year, please, whoever you are doing it, can you stop changing this? In 1973, Aladdin Sane was the best-selling album in the UK, not " Besides, it's logical, Elton's spent 11 weeks in the top 10, Bowie's 27 is a very big difference, but the fact is, whoever is doing it, STOP!"
 * 4)  "/* Year-end charts */ On the website I provide you can see how to indicate that the source is from "Music Week", a reliable music magazine that has been active since 1959, and in 1973 the best-selling album in the UK was Aladdin Sane by David Bowie!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2023 */"
 * 2)   "/* October 2023 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Best selling album of 1973? */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Best selling album of 1973? */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Best selling album of 1973? */ r"

Comments:

IP is refusing to cooperate on the article talk page and continues to revert after being told the source they are providing is unreliable. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

2600:1008:b000::/41 reported by User:Daniel Quinlan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Same editor previously engaged in two edit wars on Anya (Anastasia), one edit war in March, and one edit war in August. As an uninvolved administrator, I semi-protected Anya (Anastasia) in August. I'm WP:INVOLVED on this article, though.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:PermanentLink/1180360559

Comments:

Previous ANEW case: this stemmed from the March edit warring

Previous warnings for edit warring and blanking content:
 * User talk:2600:1008:B077:64F6:868:200D:F074:9468
 * User talk:2600:1008:B077:A932:3996:365F:EAD2:EE4A

A long-term partial block for 20th Century Studios might be a good idea. Maybe also Anya (Anastasia). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Anistasia is Owned by 20th Century Fox. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is the behavior of an editor located on this IP range on specific articles.
 * If you want to discuss which films and franchises are the "most well known and commercially successful" from 20th Century Studios, please comment on the talk page. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

They're still at it:



Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

User:46.2.205.28 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Also, IP belongs to the range that has been extensively used by the LTA User:Araxes TheThief, can't be a coincidence. They also didn't deny block evading when I mentioned it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Sanbear reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The reported user insists on changing the article's first sentence without a consensus to do so even after they were reverted by two users. KyleJoan talk 07:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I properly sourced the edit, and showed examples a similar pattern of listing citizenships in the lede. The users reverting haven't really given a good reason not to include his dual citizenship. Sanbear (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Even the user that agreed with changing the first sentence said the change should be made "if it can be sourced and consensus can be reached". Was a consensus reached? KyleJoan talk 07:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No consensus in discussion (and from remarks in reverters' edit summaries) due to clear misapprehension of policies, yet user's reverts continued anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

User:OneWordWonder reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: User refuse to cooperate on the article talk page, which is very active, and continues to revert.

User has been blocked from editting a specific article because of edit warring.

There is also a suspicion from other users that OneWordWonder is a sockpuppet. 
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

User:SMA9999 reported by User:Sumanuil (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */تعديل نص"
 * 2)  "/* Climate */ تعديل نص"
 * 3)  "/* Economy */ تعديل نص"
 * 4)  "/* Climate */ تعديل نص"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apparently determined to fix what isn't broken.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 04:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

User:GeorgeFernandez1968 reported by User:Thilsebatti (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

 * Page: Cochin Port
 * 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: attempted on my talk page

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

Comments:


 * You are supposed to notify the user being reported. I have done so for you here.User3749 (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I would like to also add that this user has been also warned by other editors for making disruptive edits such as . Thilsebatti (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

User:2A00:23EE:1800:99D2:F0F1:ECB:DC78:A9FC reported by User:331dot (Result: Declined for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The official name of this lake is Lac Léman. It has never been published geographically by any official map of the canton of Geneva, or the state of Switzerland as ‘Lake Geneva’. Unfortunately this name as incorrectly come about through English tourism to the area, and a politeness of the Swiss not to correct foreigners."
 * 2)  "It is incorrect to refer to this lake as Lake Geneva. No such name has been published by any official map produced by the canton of Geneva, or the state of Switzerland."
 * 3)  "Lake Geneva is an incorrect name used by people who are not Swiss. It is formally incorrect and denotes no such lake in existence in Switzerland. The correct name for the lake is Lac Léman in French, or Léman Lake in English. The lake is shared between Switzerland and France in geographical location and so wouldn’t be named after a place of one of the countries."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring over name of the article; not responded to warning. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At most the IP has reverted 3x (the first edit is not obviously a revert). Their edits are more akin to vandalism than a content dispute, but they haven't violated 3RR, and they haven't edited in a while (I also checked the /64 range) or reinstated their edit. For now, I'm declining to take any action. However, if the IP resumes, I think they should be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Elysean Kingdom reported by User:Alalch E. (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Allach, that's wrong. The Magellan expedition was a Spanish/Castilian expedition. Also, there is a Talk about the lead. Undid revision 1181265637 by Alalch E. (talk)"
 * 2)  "They are relevant aspects of the history of Spain, and are written in a very summary manner. Discuss it on Talk, and be careful, you are about to violate the 3RR. Undid revision 1181263581 by Bobhhik (talk)"
 * 3)  "Explain why are you reverting info. Undid revision 1181258762 by Bobhhik (talk)"
 * 4)  "Unexplained removal. Undid revision 1181250873 by Bobhhik (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Evidence of 3RR awareness: Tells the other editor Discuss it on Talk, and be careful, you are about to violate the 3RR. Editor started a discussion on talk after their third revert and between my revert and their fourth revert (Special:Diff/1181266659). Should not have told me to discuss it on talk and then make their fourth revert, but wait for me to see the discussion on talk or ping. —Alalch E. 00:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I started a Talk about the subject. I only reverted your last edition because you stated that the Magellan expedition was not a Spanish expedition, which is factually wrong. WP:Bold Elysean Kingdom (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's good that you started a talk section, but then you should not have reverted. Reverting stops when talking starts. Unless there's something critically bad in a disputed revision, there's no need for reverting because it doesn't matter what revision is currently on the page while the matter is being discussed (it's not always quite like that in reality, but this is the standard that we should hold ourselves up to) -- the outcome will be what is reached by consensus anyway. That has nothing to do with being or not being bold. It has to do with not creating undesirable instability in articles. —Alalch E. 00:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I have looked better at what WP:Bold is in its article. I have to admit that you are right with that, my apologies. Elysean Kingdom (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Good luck.—Alalch E. 00:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Bobhhik reported by User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: I want to add a follow up to Alalch E.'s report regarding an edit war on the Spain article because there is one more user that also violated the 3RR
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I also suspected that Bobbhik is similar to Norprobr because of their edits to Dominican Republic-related articles.
 * This report is a bit stale. Bobbhik was reverting a now-blocked sock. The filer has not notified Bobbhik of this report. The filer has already filed a report at SPI regarding Bobbhik. This report is .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Blakshi1234 reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Incorrect info by Neby. this is accurate info"
 * 2)  "Correct information"
 * 3)  "Source from world history encyclopedia"
 * 4)  "Accurate info"
 * 1)  "Accurate info"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Christianity by country."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Christianity by country."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * indefinitely by User:ScottishFinnishRadish as a vandalism-only account. Aoidh (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

User:E-960 reported by User:Kusma (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (more or less; slight differences irrelevant to the dispute)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:50, 22 October 2023
 * 2) 07:00, 23 October 2023
 * 3) 11:15, 23 October 2023
 * 4) 13:42, 23 October 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: multi-person discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland

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

Comments:

There is general consensus to include some history content; according to their posts at WT:POLAND and the edit summaries, E-960 seems to think their personal approval is needed for inclusion of a history section at the article. Attempts (by several users) to improve the history section are ignored. —Kusma (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The user is also involved in a similar edit war at Gorczyce, Ełk County. —Kusma (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is clear, there is an ongoing and lengthy discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland titled "Removal of former German names of places in Poland by Materialscientist using AWB" regarding a content dispute, new text has been reverted per BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and a discussion is in progress trying to seek consensus under What is consensus?. I provided a reasonable solution to the problem, however users Kusma, Piotrus, Ascended Dreamer and Yngvadottir refuse to take it into consideration, instead they keep re-adding the new text which clearly is WP:UNDUE and not WP:BALANCED. I think this is simple, compromise or stonewall and accuse others of edit warring, while doing the exact same. I think my solution is very reasonable and well within Wikipedia guidelines, so it is beyond me why go to the admins instead of implementing it. --E-960 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

User:71.169.170.15 reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1181552063 by Yoshi24517 (talk) by all means, lead by example, (butthurt) nurse ratchet."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1181548336 by Doll Allison (talk) discussion is harmfully on its face; all arguments for transcommunity erasure are garbage, period."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1181545419 by Yoshi24517 (talk) reasoning was clearly explained in revision notes"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1181543088 by That'sHedley (talk) reason for removal is utter bullshit, because trans masculine alumni are an inextricable part of this school community regardless of administrative decisions, and trans exclusionary language serves kills people, period."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miss_Porter%27s_School#Alumnae_vs_Alumni (Twinkle broke unless I did not include it in the report, so adding after the fact.)

Comments:

4 reverts, and a slight personal attack. Does not want to communicate on the talk page.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 19:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also be adding a GENSEX CTOPS notice on the talk page ... I doubt we've seen the last of this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Okiloma reported by User:Cossde (Result: No violation)
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:

Okiloma has been engaged in WP:NPOV editing, removing contented that have been WP:RS cited, claiming fring threories. Cossde (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Cossde has been engaged in citing a fringe disinformation providing - a non-government released information which has not been officially released nor accepted by the government of Sri Lanka or Sri Lankan intelligence. A newspaper named The Sunday Times gave a piece of information on 13th October 1996 that "However, according to a senior military source at the Ministry of Defence, the LTTE did take 207 officers and men into custody after over-running the Mullaitivu Military Base. Before the crack of dawn, these prisoners of war were being marched towards an unknown location when a young officer hurled a grenade killing at least six LTTE cadres including an unidentified leader. Infuriated by this incident, the source said, Tiger guerrillas summarily executed the entire lot." A similar story with a higher number of 700 was used by another pro-Sri Lankan government newspaper Sunday Observer, Further, Sunday Times never released further details regarding this nor did the government of Sri Lanka. Even when the SLA erected a memorial for KIA soldiers after the end of the war they did not comment anything regarding or use the words "POW by Tigers". This story was brought in by the then Chandrika Kumaratunga government to avoid political defamation. Since then this story has been used by the newspapers to build stories regarding the Battle of Mullaitivu.

Then Cossade provided another link that contained factually incorrect information from a link "https://web.archive.org/web/20081231051315/http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/quarter-giving-no.html". This link stated, "After the Tigers withdrew, a relief column of government forces found not a single government soldier still alive. The wounds of many of the dead, some clutching white flags of surrender, indicated they had been shot dead or blown apart by grenades at close range; hundreds of others appeared to have been herded together, doused with gasoline, and burned to death. What occurred at Mullaitivu, it seemed, was less a battle, at least in its concluding stages, than a massacre." Nothing happened as said on this webpage. The landing operation code-named "Operation Thrivida Pahara" by the government forces was repelled by Tamil Tigers and they did not recapture or enter the Tiger-captured Mullaitivu base until 2009. They were only able to enter the "southern perimeter" of the base. They did not report anything as said above. Further details about the battle can be read here: Battle of Mullaitivu (1996)

My request as I said in the reverted area, if you have factually correct source or direct reports by the soldiers of Lanka, kindly add that. Please don't add factually incorrect information and mislead the Wiki readers. Or kindly give me some time to find a reliable source regarding this. Until then refrain from adding misleading sources. Also Mullaitivu is located in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka and not in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka (Cossade mentioned it as Eastern Province and defended it when I reverted that). Okiloma (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Reply: Okiloma, has removed content cited by RS, . No mention of correction of province name indicated in the talk page. Correction is not possible since Okiloma has removed content outright. What Okiloma states is in contravention with the article Battle of Mullaitivu (1996). Cossde (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was at this point in the sequence that found "no violation" (he had a typo in the template wrong so it didn't display properly in the body).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed both the citations as per I said in the above statements, those two are misleading the people of Sri Lanka and Cossade is defending an factually misleading statement. In the Battle of Mullaitivu (1996) there is no mention of the Sri Lankan govt troops recapturing of the Tiger rebels overran camp. Also, the the first two sentence under the Execution of prisoners subheading must be removed as it uses the 1996-2001 SL government's above mentioned propaganda stories, except the third source. Okiloma (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okiloma, has once again removed WP:RS based on his/her fridge theory. Cossde (talk) 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Melotrance reported by User:Ahmadiskandarshah (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: User:Melotrance has been reverting edits that previously corrected vandalism manually. Possible single-use account.


 * . The four listed diffs are consecutive edits by the user, and the only edits they have made to the article. Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Deemester2 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: VOA blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1181673191 by Thriftycat (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1181672586 by Johnson524 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1181672091 by RobertG (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Obviously, vandalism. -Lemonaka‎ 14:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why didn't you file this at WP:AIV? User blocked VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

User:205.172.134.23 reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1181709076 by Wesoree (talk) I am removing this section per the Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons standards that says that articles should not include Contentious Labels, Loaded Language, or terms that lack precision. If any charitable donations or work counts as philanthropist, then I imagine the vast majority of people on wikipedia would be considered Philanthropists and need a Philanthropy section"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1181707822 by Yoshi24517 (talk) You don't have to make this personal, he doesn't fit the definition of a Philanthropist so calling him one and listing stuff he has done as Philanthropy is objectively wrong."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1181707311 by Yoshi24517 (talk) Removal of content was not unexplained, this person's behavior does not fit the definition of Philanthropy."
 * 4)  "Given the extensive section of his misogyny and the fact that he named his company lululemon because of racism, it is inappropriate to label him as someone who wants to support the public good."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Chip Wilson (HG) (3.4.12)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts, wants to remove the entire philanthropy section because of the subject's misogyny.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 19:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

User: Iaof2017 reported by User:AzorzaI (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Slow-edit warring by this user on this article. The reverts that are being showed are only explicitly towards one topic and does not include the editor's reverts on other topics in the article. Judging by the edit summary: "nope, there is no result", "no" and "tp discussion looks different" the user seem to be "status quo reverting" continuously.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * My reverts were conducted within the framework of back-to-back reverts. I would like to emphasise that there was an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, during which I reverted changes made by the users listed above, most of whom had not actively contributed to the discussion. They interrupted the ongoing discussion by removing the disputed content and making statements like "consensus reached" and "there was never a consensus to begin with", despite the fact that a discussion was in progress, and no consensus had been reached. A review of the view history will confirm this. I also recommend you to make better use of your time and stop wasting the time of others here. Thanks. Iaof2017 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , there is no urgency in these reverts, no clear consensus on the talk page and seemingly a need for an RfC. Please do not continue reverting unless a consensus has been found. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

User:DeoVindice reported by User:Reywas92 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: This user has been repeatedly adding WP:OR to the article, rewriting with primary sources that do not mention the article's subject at all and irrelevant quotations, while removing content about a source that is specifically about the article's subject. Although he opened Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, he decided to continue to impose his new version based only on the primary sources without waiting for input or consensus, and I kindly request the original version be restored until consensus with relevant sources is met. Reywas92Talk 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As I have explained multiple times:
 * Wilson's story was written 51 years after the alleged episode. It does not reference a date, location, Spring Valley, Bahsahwahbee. His story is not verified or substantiated by any documented evidence. The PDF is merely an application to register Bahsahwahbee as a historic site. It is not peer-reviewed or an academic paper. The PDF states that the alleged massacre did not happen at Bahsahwahbee - it is a place where people go to memorialize.
 * I have provided documented and verified accounts that have a date and location. They corroborate even though are they are from antagonistic sources (US Army vs Mormon newspaper). This is the actual incident that Wilson exaggerated.
 * You are presenting flawed information as fact and impugning the historical reputation of Lt Gay and his men.
 * You are repeatedly reverting entirely appropriate edits. DeoVindice (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And as I have explained multiple times, you have just added primary sources that are not connected to Bahsahwahbee – it is original research for you to conclude that Lt. Gay's account belongs on this article. It is also very much original research to say "This is the actual incident that Wilson exaggerated." YOU have made that conclusion when no other source has done so. YOU – not outside sources – have decided that that NRHP nomination form is "flawed" and have decided to replace it with alternative primary sources rather than simply noting its limitations. Rather than sticking with sources that have been independently connected to the topic of Bahsahwahbee, you are pushing an agenda about protecting a "historical reputation", that "Johnston was an honorable officer who led his men with discipline. He would not have permitted his troops to commit a massacre." You should be reported to WP:ORN too. Reywas92Talk 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are wrong. Wilson's story has no connection to Bahsahwahbee and yet you include it as the main documentation. DeoVindice (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But it does not look like the two of you are going to reach any compromise on this anytime soon, even though the edit war has begun to fade. Please get other knowledgeable editors involved. Daniel Case (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Alwoodjs reported by User:Dan Leonard (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments: copying of copyrighted text from external source. Removal of AfD notice.


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

User:181.199.63.238 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Proxy 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:

The case was already been solved in the talk page of that article, I’m sorry if I caused problems, now I'm finding alternatives of that, please see Talk:Emirate of Granada. There's no need to block me because I found another alternative of that problem rather than making edit war, the main reason was changing dates without providing references, but I stopped that, I swear. 181.199.63.238 (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP as a proxy for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23: I've bumped to 3 months. This is still, as it was in July. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 23:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

User:TheFoxTheorist reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
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 Draft:Compound Fox Theory."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Removing AFC comments (and breaking 3RR) Notrealname1234 (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * for not only the edit warring but also the persistent attempts to hide previous AfC commentary. For example after the comments at Draft:Compound Fox Theory kept getting restored they created Draft:Compound Fox Hypothesis, presumably to try to avoid the AfC comment from being visible on the draft. Aoidh (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Phantaki reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Blocked indefintely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Back when this was in theaters it was considered a horror film only when they made sequels that the series became more action based."
 * 1)  "Back when this was in theaters it was considered a horror film only when they made sequels that the series became more action based."
 * 1)  "Back when this was in theaters it was considered a horror film only when they made sequels that the series became more action based."
 * 1)  "Back when this was in theaters it was considered a horror film only when they made sequels that the series became more action based."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple reverts on multiple article, about 10-12 articles, adding the horror genre to the article without sources or consensus. Consensus was already formed at The Terminator for not including the word horror, see and.

When confronted about it to begin with yesterday, they responded with Sorry but I am updating info to be accurate that you don’t know of. Link Later today when confronted about changing genres without a source, they said Learn the find genre bitch. Link. Also made a personal attack here afterwards. .  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 19:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * for edit warring, personal attacks, and this. If the behavior continues the next block is likely to be indefinite. Aoidh (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, after looking into the edits more, since the comment linked above wasn't the only one and the disruptive WP:POINT edit on the article doesn't inspire confidence that there will be productive editing after a short block. - Aoidh (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Ninhursag3 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added another source reference."
 * 2)  "Added the section "Barbary pirates in the wider Ottoman slave trade context" and added references and exact page numbers."
 * 3)  "Added link, reference and information about the 1627 Barbary raid on Iceland in order to kidnap people for the slave trade."
 * 4)  "Adjusted link."
 * 5)  "Put the information that is later on in the article in the context where it talks about the numbers."
 * 6)  "Other historians don't have exact numbers to contradict historian Robert Davis's numbers."
 * 1)  "Adjusted link."
 * 2)  "Put the information that is later on in the article in the context where it talks about the numbers."
 * 3)  "Other historians don't have exact numbers to contradict historian Robert Davis's numbers."
 * 1)  "Other historians don't have exact numbers to contradict historian Robert Davis's numbers."
 * 1)  "Other historians don't have exact numbers to contradict historian Robert Davis's numbers."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2023 */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* October 2023 */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Barbary slave trade."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The section talking about the numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles slaves is being pushed at the end of the article and not at the start where the numbers are being talked about */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* The section talking about the numbers of Russians, Ukrainians, and Poles slaves is being pushed at the end of the article and not at the start where the numbers are being talked about */"

Comments:

They keep edit warring as well as removing sourced content that doesn't agree with their POV. M.Bitton (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I just agreed with you to not add that information.I said in the last comment.
 * "Ok, btw in Eltis, David; Bradley, Keith; Engerman, Stanley L.; Cartledge, Paul (2011). The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521840682  page 153 it also says ". According to Robert Davis’s careful calculations, a million to a million and a quarter Christian captives entered the Maghrib from 1530 to 1780. Of these unfortunates, it is estimated that fewer than 5 percent escaped or were ransomed. From 1520 to 1830, Algiers alone imported about six hundred twenty-five thousand."
 * So I'm gonna add this source as well."
 * Ok meant that I won't add the Russians, Ukrainian and Polish slaves taken by the Ottomans as slaves information even if it was the context of the Barbary pirates under the Ottoman empire/Wider Ottoman slave trade. But now you want to delete the information regarding the Barbary pirates: " The Cambridge World History of Slavery: Volume 3, AD 1420–AD 1804. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521840682  page 153 it also says ". According to Robert Davis’s careful calculations, a million to a million and a quarter Christian captives entered the Maghrib from 1530 to 1780. Of these unfortunates, it is estimated that fewer than 5 percent escaped or were ransomed. From 1520 to 1830, Algiers alone imported about six hundred twenty-five thousand." Ninhursag3 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed sourced content, again and again, despite stating on your talk page that you'll refrain from doing that again. The rest of your copy paste is irrelevant to what you did (remove sourced content that doesn't suit your POV without even an explanation, let alone a valid one). M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Informationsort reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No need for removal of information."
 * 2)  "Information about this page added."
 * 3)  "No need for removal."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning on edit-warring etc"
 * 2)   "This may be your last warning before you are reported to administrators"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Including information on the page */ Reply"

Comments:

See also edit-warring at Berbers, despite another discussion there too:, , ,. R Prazeres (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked from article space for one week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Crows Yang reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""most...soviet victory" thing cannot be found in the secondary sources cited by the primary source listed, so it was author's own opinion, not a conclusion backed by a secondary source"
 * 1)  ""most...soviet victory" thing cannot be found in the secondary sources cited by the primary source listed, so it was author's own opinion, not a conclusion backed by a secondary source"
 * 1)  ""most...soviet victory" thing cannot be found in the secondary sources cited by the primary source listed, so it was author's own opinion, not a conclusion backed by a secondary source"
 * 1)  ""most...soviet victory" thing cannot be found in the secondary sources cited by the primary source listed, so it was author's own opinion, not a conclusion backed by a secondary source"
 * 1)  ""most...soviet victory" thing cannot be found in the secondary sources cited by the primary source listed, so it was author's own opinion, not a conclusion backed by a secondary source"
 * 1)  ""most...soviet victory" thing cannot be found in the secondary sources cited by the primary source listed, so it was author's own opinion, not a conclusion backed by a secondary source"

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

Comments:

The user has been asked to obtain consensus on talk page first but has refused to do so; their edits were contested back in May and they haven't commented on the talk page since. Furthermore since their account was created in May almost all of their edits have been to this article, implying a WP:SPA – indeed, they have previously been blocked for disruption on this same article. — Czello (music) 08:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Oncamera reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 12 February 2021‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:05, 26 October 2023‎
 * 2) 06:05, 26 October 2023
 * 3) 05:56, 26 October 2023‎
 * 4) 15:09, 16 October 2023‎
 * 5) 18:29, 5 October 2023‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: From 2019. I didn't leave a new one in the interest of "don't template the regulars" Based on their block log, they should already be aware of the edit warring policy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: New thread at (with general notice at ), where Oncamera first commented at  06:42, 26 October 2023

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

Comments:

Disputed edits started back in February 2021 regarding Kyrie Irving's nationality in the infobox and lead sentence. There was a discussion back then at Talk:Kyrie_Irving/Archive_1. Oncamera has been blocked for edit warring (in other areas) in the past.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I stopped after Sbaio brought it up in the latest revert and have been involved in talkpage discussions. Seems unwarranted to open this case hours later without any further edits to the page by myself. oncamera  (talk page)</i> 06:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Blocking policy: In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate. I stopped editing the page once I was made aware of the 3RR issue and mentioned in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association that I would seek outside dispute resolution once I was aware it was a Wikiproject WP:CONLEVEL issue. Bringing this to the 3RR noticeboard hours later seems to be an attempt (ie WP:Gaming the system) to stop me from seeking outside editors input as part of the dispute resolution process. oncamera  <i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i> 07:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I stopped editing the page once I was made aware of the 3RR issue... You're not a new user. You've been blocked for edit warring before. The onus is on you to be "aware", and there is no reason to believe that you weren't already.—Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of how many reverts or edits I had made and once it was mentioned, I stopped. You only put the 3RR warning template on my talkpage -after- you made this report and are claiming I should be have been aware from a block 5 years ago? Forgive me that my mind isn't exactly thinking about my Wikipedia edits from years ago. oncamera  <i style="color:#ad0076; font-family:georgia">(talk page)</i> 08:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I notified you about this edit warring report. It was not a 3RR warning.  And 3RR is not the only type of edit warring.  That's a Wikipedia policy, which we all are expected to follow, regardless of your excuse of your poor memory. —Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * . Their last block was in 2018, and I can believe that perhaps they lost track of how many reverts they had made and stopped when made aware. While they were edit warring, I don't think a block would prevent anything further at this time since they appear to have ceased their reverts. However, they have been warned on their talk page that any further reverting regarding this material will likely result in a block. - Aoidh (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One final note on this, this noticeboard is not always a fast-moving board, and it is not unusual for an editor to report an editor hours after the reported editor's last edit, especially when it's concerning edit warring over a long time period. Accusing another editor of gaming the system for reporting your edit warring at the edit warring noticeboard is both inaccurate and unconstructive. Please refrain from speculating on the motivations of others, as it's not helpful and making a habit of it may lead to a block in its own right. - Aoidh (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Mohamed anonymous reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1182152824 by 197.36.119.99 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1182143322 by 62.114.25.16 (talk)"
 * 3)  "added some depth to the article"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1182143322 by 62.114.25.16 (talk)"
 * 2)  "added some depth to the article"
 * 1)  "added some depth to the article"
 * 1)  "added some depth to the article"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked for vandalism. There's a lot of crap going on at that article, but at least it's been semi-protected by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:BeingObjective reported by User:Clovermoss (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I beleive this version - is correct - it has been talked about and debated, warning have been issued - if I am blocked I AM HAPPY TO STAND BY BE VIEWPOINTS AND NOT BE BULLIED - THIS IS THE BETTER VERSION - OBECTIVELY and by all CLINICAL measures. Undid revision 1182176277 by WikiLinuz (talk)"
 * 2)  "SEE TALK SECTION - anywhere but the start!!! Undid revision 1182168844 by Kimen8 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Trying to compromise and be constructive - perhaps this is really for the section on societal usage - I tried to really compromise. It simply creates a non-encyclopedic tone from the very get go - BENZOS is simply slang, it is IMPRECISE the other terms might appear deeper in a casual written dialog or article -- but they are not common in a Doc's office - check the DEA WS.. And it is not used in a clinical setting by a professional - any other Docs out there?"
 * 4)  "MOVE THIS TO THE TALK SECTION  - WE ESTABLISHED YOU ARE NOT A DOC> STOP PLEASE.Undid revision 1182167189 by Kimen8 (talk)"
 * 5)  "DEA links - redirect."
 * 6)  "A prior editor stated terms like 'Benzos' are a standard clinical expression - they are not. A Physician or GP would NEVER state "I'm going to prescribe Benzos for you". There are many street names and as these are common drugs of abuse - it needs  a mention, BUT if this is to be a NPOV, encyclopedic toned discussion of these compounds - it needs to read this way and one assumes most readers are not purchasing from street dealers. The DEA has an whole article on this matter - https://www.deadive"
 * 1)  "DEA links - redirect."
 * 2)  "A prior editor stated terms like 'Benzos' are a standard clinical expression - they are not. A Physician or GP would NEVER state "I'm going to prescribe Benzos for you". There are many street names and as these are common drugs of abuse - it needs  a mention, BUT if this is to be a NPOV, encyclopedic toned discussion of these compounds - it needs to read this way and one assumes most readers are not purchasing from street dealers. The DEA has an whole article on this matter - https://www.deadive"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: There's some back-and-forth about this issue on User talk:BeingObjective with

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

Comments:
 * Edit war warning in this diff. -- Wiki Linuz  ( talk ) 16:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * and warned for personal attacks and accusations of persecution.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:TheDelhiBoy2 reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
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:

VViking Talk Edits 23:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Uhooep has has a history of systemic bias toward this wikipedia article. it has been flagged multiple times. You should investigate why systemic bias vandalism has been allowed for a number of years. It was flagged up previously that they have a conflict of interest and are possibly a close relation in the page history. TheDelhiBoy2 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is an area covered by ds/sanctions (Eastern Europe) in a known area of contention.
 * Reliable sources were added by  (Routledge and RAND) and they were removed by   (1RR) (See edit summary for reason)
 * The removal was reverted by TimothyBlue (See edit summary for reason) and reverted again by Kashmiri 2RR /

2 editors have supported the addition of reliable sources, he has reverted both. This is a contentious article and this cannot be tolerated. Ban not needed but they need to self revert and commit to 1RR. If this article is going to improve everyone needs to play by the rules, not edit war. Kashmiri is 17 years 9 months old, with 36,508 edits, they know better.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not a 3RR area - 1RR applies. CTopics warning User talk:Kashmiri/Archive 6 25 March 2023 and 1RR warning today.  // Timothy :: talk  09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See ongoing discussion that has devolved. POV edit warring will only make this worse: Talk:Abkhazia

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

Comments:

CTopics warning User talk:Kashmiri/Archive 6 25 March 2023


 * Two things need clarifying it seems.
 * No DS apply to the Abkhazia page – see WP:CT/EE: When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice:. No such notice is present on Talk:Abkhazia.
 * Per WP:V, unsourced material may be removed. The sentence in question must be considered unsourced in 2023, since the only sources listed dated to 2001–2007, which was well before Abkhazia received its first international recognition. Additionally, the two sources available online did not support the statement, while the two others were not readily available for verification (they were old books) and at least one was questionable for the statement (it was a book about Azerbaijani energy sources).
 * For the above reasons, I considered it correct and helpful to remove the false "sources" and add a cn tag instead.
 * Similarly, the wording "most UN members" underwent many modifications over the last months and years, with no regard to actual sources.
 * Finally, if you feel like discussing the content, then Talk:Abkhazia should the the first venue, well before escalating to AN3. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  12:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 1RR restrictions are not automatically applied on all topics that fall under WP:CT/EE, but may be imposed to individual articles by any uninvolved administrator at their discretion. I don't see that any 1RR restriction has been implemented at either Abkhazia/Talk:Abkhazia or at Arbitration enforcement log. If it's something I'm overlooking, could you provide a diff that shows where 1RR was implemented? - Aoidh (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . Per the above, there does not appear to be a 1RR restriction in place on the article. - Aoidh (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)