Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive475

User:KlayCax reported by User:Nemov (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Widespread agreement among editors that this should remain in. One objection does not unilaterally override the rest."
 * 2)  "NBC News is a reliable source"
 * 3)  "Restored covenant marriages + advocacy for sodomy laws that were removed without reason. Both of which are central to his political career, have been overwhelmingly mentioned by reliable sources in profiles, and have substantive and long-term notability."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "/* ‎Johnson Lead: new section

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

Comments:

I've been attempting to steer this editor in the right direction for a few days after noticing they had several warnings in the past for edit warring. It's not working and the editor continues to add material in the lead that's been challenged without finding consensus to do so on a contentious topic. Nemov (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ,, , , and other editors have also reverted (or supported) the changes. I'll note that I was simply reverting what was being reinstated into the article. A single editor can't unilaterally override the widespread consensus. I've responded extensively on talk, there's an overwhelming consensus among editors that it merits inclusion, and this was a single reversion within a 24 hour time frame, that further only reinstated another user's reinstatement.
 * I've responded extensively on talk and there's a widespread consensus among many, many, many editors that the sentence belongs in the article's lead. A single reinstatement of another editor's edits within 24 hours does not account to edit warring. If that's how you see it I genuinely apologize and that was not my intention. RFC's are a measure of last resort and I was under the impression that — while not universally agreed upon — there was enough consensus for this to be final.
 * If you think this merits a RFC then I'd be alright with that. KlayCax (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how anyone could review this discussion and claim "there's an overwhelming consensus." Nemov (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I interpreted it as 8+ in favor:
 * JM2023
 * SocDoneLeft
 * StAnselm
 * StardustToStarDust
 * Twillisjr
 * SecretName101
 * And several others.
 * Alongside me
 * While 2 editors were against:
 * MonMothma, Nemov
 * And 1 I was unsure about:
 * Pbritti
 * So a 3x-4x ratio. I'm aware that it's not a universal consensus. Albeit I consider it to be a strong one. KlayCax (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I wasn't in favor of that specific verbiage in the lead but was more attempting to facilitate discussion with a new editor at one point, so I did not express my disapproval. KlayCax is correct that there was a consensus on this, though I can't speak in the 3RR matter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And it's stopped since the last edit ... perhaps the BLPN discussion is having some impact? Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

User:DesiredBM reported by User:Di (they-them) (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Zenomonoz reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  22:26, 28 October 2023
 * 2)  23:33, 28 October 2023
 * 3)  00:10, 29 October 2023
 * 4)  01:20, 29 October 2023
 * 5)  03:26, 29 October 2023
 * 6)  08:35, 29 October 2023
 * 7)  10:15, 29 October 2023
 * 8)  19:22, 29 October 2023
 * 9)  21:23, 29 October 2023
 * 10)  21:31, 29 October 2023
 * 11)  21:48, 29 October 2023 (self-reverted after warning)
 * 12)  23:51, 29 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: This is only a small sample of the edits made by Zenomonoz to this article over the past 24 hours, but these are the ones that are unambiguous reverts. Obviously we're well past 4RR. See attendant behavior at Talk:Richard Hanania and BLPN, where Zenomonoz is clearly in the minority on most of these issues and yet persists in trying to get their way through repeated reversions. Note that my laconic replies to this user on article talk and at BLPN are because I've been rather worn down by their rhetorical tactics, which strike me as tendentious, in past interactions. See e.g. this exchange. Probably also worth noting that this user was only recently unblocked back in May after being indeffed for sockpuppetry. Generalrelative (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Generalrelative cites single reverts of material with improper sourcing to Apple Podcasts. This is exempt per WP:3RRNO, "Removing contentious material that is ... poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons BLP policy".
 * Per Generalrelative's comment on my talk page, I had hit hit four reverts, so they asked me to revert my revert. I did so, acknowledging the mistake.
 * Later, I changed a sentence to bring it in-line with the sources (because of caution with contentious topics) as Hanania had not "disavowed racism", he disavowed his prior writing. Before making the edit, I noted this on the talk page, which Generalrelative ignored. Generalrelative again asked me to revert this edit on my talk page, claiming that this edit was a "partial revert". However, this was not a partial revert as this sentence/content was not in the article before. It was a re-write to better align it with the sources.
 * Generalrelative is labelling acceptable edits as "edit warring" even when they do not involve reverts, nor restoring any prior content. It looks like I hit 4 true reverts (per generalrelative), which was a mistake, and reverted the fourth, to bring it back to three. Another user also suggested that my changes were acceptable per WP:3RRNO. In future, I will be more cautious on this. Thank you. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I ignored you because several others stepped in to explain to you that you were wrong, both on article talk, and at BLPN . This will be my only reply to you here because I don't want to turn this case into yet another debate. Generalrelative (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The sentence we are talking about is this one which I queried on the talk page here. You ignored this reply to you, then labelled my edit to correct it as a "partial revert" (incorrectly). None of those comments you cite are about that. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * from article, for constantly changing and revising during a discussion, a frequent source of complaints here, especially after themselves having opened discussion on not just one but two other noticeboards, something that drew complaints from other editors as possible forum shopping. This way, it is hoped, they will take the talk page discussion more seriously and work with other editors to reach consenus. I will also be tagging the article's talk page with a CTOPS notice; it seems to have been headed in that direction since it was created. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:202.142.104.226 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked for 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Note they have blown right through 3RR and may well be out the other side. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC) In fact they are. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a week. WaggersTALK  12:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:80.191.85.169 reported by User:McSly (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP has been doing the same unsourced change for the past couple of days. They made no attempt at communication, they just remaking the same edit over and over again. McSly (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * by User:ScottishFinnishRadish Aoidh (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:7ly v reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "What well you do ?"
 * 2)  "I told you there where a second battle in the same place if your too scared to check it i can do kia for years"
 * 3)  "Sure there you got one"
 * 4)  "Keep eye on this page theres some guy who keep deleting the kia while it’s mentioned the the books Tusun pasha died in the battle of Turuba"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2023 */ Notice about edit-warring. Do not repeat that edit again unless you've established a consensus on the article talk page."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tusun Pasha "killed in action" */ new section"

Comments:

This initial logged-out edit might be them too. R Prazeres (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . While technically not a 3RR violation, the fourth revert was just outside of it and between this edit summary and this comment that seems to suggest they do not intend to cease edit warring, a block seems necessary to stop further disruption. - Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

User:97.114.180.38 reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Addition of "In 2024, the Pac-12 will most likely be defunct.")

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  21:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2)  22:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 3)  23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 4)  23:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 22:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 23:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

Multiple IPs have reverted to this statement, but this user was insistent. They posted on user talk pages about blocking but weren't open to discussion. Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Special:contributions/97.114.128.0/18 for three months for disruptive editing. It's actually been going on for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are other recent IPs they've used they are not under that range such as 97.114.194.147 and 97.114.196.75- might 97.114.0.0/16 be a better range to block (or is that too large a range)? Magitroopa (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The most recent edit by an IP who is in the /16 range but not in the /18 range is from about a week ago. The two you highlight are even older. Based on that, I'm unwilling to block such a wide range. If you find that unblocked IPs start editing to avoid the /18 block, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Nadya Hasan reported by User:Melcous (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: editor's first logged in edit, although it seems from edit summaries the same edit made the same reverts as an IP previously

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Melcous (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:112.209.96.120 reported by User:TheManInTheBlackHat (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [1182847489]
 * 2) [1182847306]
 * 3) [1175392371]
 * 4) [1174630807]
 * 5) [1175392053]

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: [1182848000]

Comments: Using edit warring on multiple IPs

Blocked for 31h by 331dot. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 21:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

User:69.119.175.33 reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1182898490 by Andrevan (talk) I already warned you twice. Third time gets taken up with admins. Your call!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1182898168 by Andrevan (talk) Please do NOT edit war. Take any concerns to the talk, thanks!"
 * 3)  "Reverting to previous most neutral version"
 * 4)  "Umberto Eco is not a scholar."
 * 5)  "Not relevant"
 * 1)  "Not relevant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking."
 * 2)   "/* November 2023 */ Reply"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring."

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

Comments: User also reverted this report. Andre🚐 01:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

User:DoItForDan reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) DoItForDan's first round of mass changes identified as vandalism and reverted by ClueBot NG.
 * 2) DoItForDan's first revert followed by these maintenance changes and restoring the long standing version by me.
 * 3) DoItForDan's second revert followed by my revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The reported user made zero attempt to discuss their mass changes on the talk page and instead he is trying to keep his preferred version by edit warring. The user's contribution includes only edits to Prosecution of Daniel Duggan, so I would call it a WP:NOTHERE case. Among other content issues, his edit inserts WP:MOS issues to the page. -- M h hossein   talk 18:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * . Given the nature of the WP:SPA and lack of talk page usage I don't think a timed block will prevent anything (stressing that indefinite does not mean infinite), but a partial block will allow them to discuss the issues on the talk page if they choose to do so. Aoidh (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Freescott reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1183025261 by Czello (talk), there is nothing about texture forming property of its overall popularity"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183024550 by Yoshi24517 (talk), no leadcite issue. I have removed the whole section which does not contain a source to substantiate the claim. Thanks anyhow"
 * 3)  "Read all the paragraphs and they say nothing to support your claim"
 * 4)  "no source"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts on Milk chocolate, despite other editors disagreeing.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 20:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Dlv426 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

User keeps adding info not supported by a source, despite being told multiple times not to. It's been over 24 hours, but still in the same period. There seems to be WP:COMPETENCE and/or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues. User has been told several times to refrain from edit warring and discuss it through in the talk page. As another user perfectly put it, Dlv426 "seem to be resistant to reviewing the rules to which the community has agreed to.". --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

User:HolonZeias reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1183154361 by M.Bitton (talk): Undoing this one just to put attention on a literal menace receiving here. Starting to smell some kind of agenda here."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183153296 by M.Bitton (talk): Not POV; current Pieds-Noirs admit they don't even have an agreed upon place in Europe to settle down, their traditional homeland being on the African continent. See talk page: person wildly ignores crucial elements in favour of own POV and even links to articles contradicting them."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1183152773 by M.Bitton (talk): Given that 3R admitted having no idea what that is and given their erroneous line of thought that opinion, along with your selective bias, can be clearly discarded. Please refrain from keeping erroneous information on Wikipedia, thank you!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1183099637 by Comores 123 (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Poland */: Removed weird fringe movements; according to the states sources these are either "what if" journalistic articles talking to a couple of locals, or other projects made by single individuals without any notoriety."
 * 1)  "/* Poland */: Removed weird fringe movements; according to the states sources these are either "what if" journalistic articles talking to a couple of locals, or other projects made by single individuals without any notoriety."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of active separatist movements in Europe."

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

Comments:

After a long discussion, they asked for a third opinion, but since it didn't go their way, they decided to impose their POV through an edit war because, according to them, I have a history of not knowing how to read sources appropriately (see diff) and the 3O has an erroneous line of thought (highlighted in their edit summary). M.Bitton (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 3O admitted not knowing about the subject and doing somewhat erroneous lines of thought. Person here in question displayed several instances of passive-agressive behaviour in the concerned talk page, wildly ignoring arguments during the discussion and several times linking to sources contradicting their own points. Person in question has already had edit wars with other people concerning the subject of North African Pieds-Noirs people based in France. Sources stated don't support person in question either.
 * HolonZeias (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We get it, anyone who disagrees with you has to be plain stupid. M.Bitton (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You did not read the sources you were clinging to and were literally contradicting your points of view, as stated on the talk page. Several people have tried going against your nonsense, to the point you did not even remove the New Caledonia and other movements from the Europe list as it would otherwise contradict your whole line of thought. Again, for someone being very "Wikipedian self-appointed mod" you've been menacing and directily insulting on several occasions. HolonZeias (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I get it: anyone who disagrees with you has to be plain stupid. M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice one. On another note, please also reread (I know, difficult for someone who reads the word Spain in articles not including said nation) the edits on the Polish movements, as I have no idea what those are doing in your complaint. HolonZeias (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice try. They are part of the 14:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1183099637 by Comores 123 (talk)" (your first revert of the day and your nth on the article). M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Lukeest reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid destructive revision 1183160376 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183156278 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 3)  "Updated and expanded APR's Wikipedia page. Due to Stephen Hooks' successful entrepreneurship, APR lives on and thrives. While Stephen has moved on to start a new company Sonic Tools as he disrupts the tool truck business, APR is still a household name in the automotive and racing industries. Audi Performance & Racing is one of the largest auto technology companies in the United States. The facility is state of the art, the people are professionals, and the work is renowned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "re"
 * 2)   "/* Managing a conflict of interest */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to add unsourced and promotional text; their hostility towards my comments suggests to me they have little interest in discussion or in ceasing their efforts. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that these are their only edits, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a sock. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Has further edit warred with this series, here. and this series. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * . Their edit history is persistent promotional edit warring. Aoidh (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

User:XY League reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1183186869 by Cerebral726 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183179612 by Cerebral726 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2023 */ advise"
 * 2)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

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

Comments:

Ignoring edit war warnings, has now requested page protection to "protect [their] edits". Has shown this behavior before here. Has continued this behavior after this report again:. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Whysoanonymous reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  - new revert after this report was made
 * 7)  - partial revert: removing a citation present in the first 5 reverts

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:

WP:NOTHERE, WP:TENDENTIOUS, consuming a lot of valuable time from credible editors. Joshua Jonathan -  Let's talk!  11:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Outside of 24 hour period


 * 1) as an IP
 * 2) as an IP, consecutive edits
 * 3) (Several revdel'd edits)
 * 4) as an IP
 * 5)

Within the past 24 hours


 * 1)  "The citation isn't related to this statement. And the language that is used here is very subjective, that goes against tge principles of neutral point of view"
 * 2)  "Once again, there is no citation. Citation for the next sentence isn't related to this statement"
 * 3)  "No citation. The information is questionable"

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

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

Comments:

3RR hasn't been violated in this instance, but it comes after an edit warring notice from another article and a refusal to continue discussing on the talk page. In this instance they are deleting information that is clearly sourced while falsely claiming the source doesn't support the content. — Czello (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 16:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * They are also edit warring on The Ingraham Angle and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 3RR hasn't been violated on any page, but I was split between blocking them now and giving them one last chance and blocking on the next revert of whatever page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Judging by their edits they appear to be an ideology warrior who's targeting left-leaning subjects (or softening descriptions of "right wing" and "conservative" in right-leaning articles). — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 16:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Their user page is not encouraging either. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Jon698 reported by User:Freechild (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

Jon698 has broken the 3RR rule, and has not acted in good faith. I have met their requests as shared within the edit bar and they continue to revert my edits without further explanation. According to their User page they are very politically oriented, and I suspect their edits reflect a political bias. Admin intervention is requested to stop continued edit warring. Freechild (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. I do not see how me being more liberal would make me desire to ruin the page of a Democratic candidate. 2. You have not altered your edits from the previous months. 3. Your edits have created three entirely unsourced paragraphs. 4. You continue to insist on the inclusion of an award section that is entirely unnotable. 5. Sentences like "Preston Love, Jr.'s career has spanned corporate technology, government, politics and social entrepreneurship." and the edits contain far too much editorial language. Jon698 (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also according to the revision history you had no problem with the page between April 15 and September 27. Yet you decided to add the information that was rejected that last time we did this. Jon698 (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking beyond the numerous unsourced material in the article, you also added in an unsourced birth date within a sourced section. Jon698 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no WP:3RR violation, as the above diffs go back to September. Both of you, however, are edit warring. This edit is not reverting vandalism (WP:NOTVAND), and it's not helpful to have an edit summary that simply says stop edit war while edit warring yourself. Discuss this on the talk page and get a consensus for changes before implementing them. Also per WP:DOB please do not insert an unreferenced DOB on a BLP article. This back-and-forth has been going on since April. If edit warring continues after the block protection has expired (especially if no consensus has been reached on the article's talk page) then one or both editors will likely be blocked for edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "after the protection has expired".--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did indeed, thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Aoidh, if you refer to the talk page you will see that I initiated a genuinely determined conversation with the other party to which they did not respond in kind, instead persistent in their steadfast denial of the validity of my edits. I will attempt to initiate again, but I need to know what steps to take if and when that doesn't work. Freechild (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw the talk page when the report was made, and this is not a genuinely determined conversation, it's asking them to discuss in lieu of discussing anything yourself, while also framing it as an issue of their edit warring, when you both are edit warring. That comment is neither an explanation for the reasons for your edits nor it is an attempt to obtain consensus of any kind. Regarding this comment, I would suggest you read WP:V, particularly the lede (i.e., first three paragraphs) and WP:ONUS (The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content). You should ideally be explaining on the talk page the reason why the changes you made should be implemented in the article and trying to obtain a consensus for those changes. - Aoidh (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Uniru288 reported by User:HapHaxion (Result: Blocked two weeks.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "More sources"
 * 2)  "I undo editing of the blocked user 'Superpowersjam'"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1182705120 by Superpowersjam (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1182705120 by Superpowersjam (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Re: Renewal Front */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Renewal Front."
 * 3)   "Caution: Adding original research on Renewal Front."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Two prior blocks for edit warring. Continued to revert sources being added to support the political party being labeled as centre-right, and when this did not work, added additional sources claiming centre-left which failed verification (WP:OR) <b style="font-family: Tw Cen MT; color: FireBrick">HapHaxion</b> (talk / contribs) 17:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The two blocks HapHaxion mentioned were both for violations at Javier Milei, an extremely sensitive article where Uniru288 has just done four aggressive, unfair reverts in about the last two hours. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 21:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to act on this one but did want to note that this ANI discussion (Permalink) is somewhat relevant to this report. - Aoidh (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked two weeks Cullen328 (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:PeeJay reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Stale)
Page:, , ,

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Template:2027 Cricket World Cup
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183149424 by Vestrian24Bio (talk) so? doesn't mean they're needed"
 * 3)  "cleanup"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1183322467 by Vestrian24Bio (talk) what for?"
 * 5) Template:2023 Cricket World Cup
 * 6)  "cleanup"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1183322804 by Vestrian24Bio (talk) not needed"
 * 8) Template:2019 Cricket World Cup
 * 9)  "cleanup"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1183325606 by Vestrian24Bio (talk) not needed"
 * 11) Template:2015 Cricket World Cup
 * 12)  "cleanup"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 1183326373 by Vestrian24Bio (talk) not needed"

Comments: Chronological Timeline details are usually included in Cricket-related Navigational Boxes (Category:Cricket World Cup navigational boxes, Category:World championships sport navigational boxes) As, they are useful to Navigate thorough recent events for readers. But User:PeeJay has been removing them not just in the above mentioned Templates; also in othe templates from the mentioned categories. (Templates from Category:Cricket Twenty20 navigational boxes haven't been edited yet.) I told them to get consensus on Talk page before removing again; But, has been just removing them over and over again. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:03, 04 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please note that the User:PeeJay already has a long history of blocks for Edit warring. See block log 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The only template that I can see that PeeJay has broken 3RR is the 2027 one, and the filer of this has reverted four times themselves there (even if the four reverts are slightly outside the 24h). More to the point, neither editor has actually engaged in discussion on any of the talk pages, so I am unsure how you're ever going to agree if all you're doing is reverting each other.  I strongly suggest that you either start discussing between yourselves, or I suggest that you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket to allow other editors interested in the subject to weigh in and perhaps gain consensus.  But I do not see any reason to sanction a single editor here at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We had discussed it through the edit summaries; see here 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are where discussion should take place (See for example WP:REVTALK and WP:BRDDISCUSS). - Aoidh (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Actual policy basis for this advice is WP:EPTALK, WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and WP:RCD. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:JackyTheChemosh reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1183375953 by M.Bitton (talk) Everything was already said either in edit comments or the discussion but i will give my exact reasoning here. 1. Most of the sources are dead links and are therefore worthless or are primary sources 2. The links that aren't dead either talk about setting up a state in Africa or in Europe with no other specification besides "in France" 3. If they claim the former then it doesn't belong becau..."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183374600 by M.Bitton (talk) Im not insulting them im stating what they themselves said. No claims to land = no place in the article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1183326392 by M.Bitton (talk) The 3rd party admitted to not knowing anything and even if we go by their opinion this still would not be appropriate for this article for the same reason that the Russian Monarchist micronation isn't in the Africa article, it has no claims to any land"
 * 4)  "/* France */ region in question is located entirely in Africa. not appropriate for this article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 

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

Comments:

This editor has done nothing but edit war on this article since the 12th of September. They made a single comment on the discussion that I started and then abandoned it. Invites to comment further have been ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My reasoning and critiques were ignored as was the critiques of others. (Hopefully this comment is signed after this cuz i have how to do it on mobile) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackyTheChemosh (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Diffs don't lie. One single comment on the talk page (and a baseless one at that) on the 24th of September is the total of your contribution to the discussion that you abandoned once I asked you to cite the sources. Also, your last 8 "contributions" to the WP project are all reverts on this article (that's literally all you've done since the 12th of September). The work and reasoning of the 3O that you are treating as someone who doesn't know anything about the subject far surpasses anything that has been put forward by you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have copied 's block settings to as both have engaged in exactly the same behavior to the point of one practically acting as a sockpuppet of the other. I'll leave the evaluation of s 6 reverts to someone else as I won't block for what is essentially the reverting of block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have made 3 edits in the 24 hours preceding the report, and that's only because I was dealing with a single purpose revert account (as explained above). Their claim that the the 3rd party admitted to not knowing anything is factually incorrect and speaks volumes about how far they're willing to go in order to impose a POV that they can't justify on the talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this is an exemption from the requirement to avoid edit warring. The only actual argument to me so far is de-facto block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * by ToBeFree. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:XY League reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result:Blocked for a week; subsequently blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1183223461 by Jauerback (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183223482 by Jauerback (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1183223468 by Jauerback (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previous block warning

Comments:

Immediately resumed edit wars after 31 hours block was lifted. First incident here Cerebral726 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User just tried to remove this report. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Subsequently indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo reported by User:Skyerise (Result: ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - wholesale revert
 * 2)  - wholesale revert
 * 3)  - removal of citation request just after it was placed
 * 4)  - immediate reversion of edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Please see the related discussion at Administrator's noticeboard in order to make an informed decision. Thanks!--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Whether you are edit-warring is based solely on the number of reverts you have made, not whether you are "right" or "wrong". If you self-revert your last revert, you may avoid being blocked. Skyerise (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is patent nonsense. There are clear exemptions from the three-revert rule. In this case, the edits you have been making violate policy: attempting to merge a page without seeking consensus and making biased edits in order to disrupt the page's creation. In some of these cases, you have put notices on sentences that were clearly cited. In others, you changed "white" to "Western" despite the fact the sections immediately preceding that sentence negates it. It is hard to see this as anything but wikilawyering as retaliation for my earlier post to the more general noticeboard. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I discussed every one of the points on the talk page before I placed the citation requests, but you dismissed my concerns and instead cast aspersions. You cannot pretend you don't know why I placed them, which is what reverting them would imply. You've made 4 reverts in a disagreement which was being discussed on the talk page: that's edit-warring, pure and simple. Skyerise (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that the talk page for Western tulku is mainly claims that the page is racist and/or counter-claims of white Buddhist rage (which I stand by, though it might not be appropriate for Wikipedia talk pages.) I know why you placed them -- you have been consistently arguing that the page is racist and written with the express intent to attack white people, as you've shown there and on the AfD proposal. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 17:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the only relevant thing here is that you have reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours, and the last two reverts were done while there was ongoing discussion on the talk page, which makes them even worse than the first two. Thanks for admitting you did know why I placed them but chose to revert anyway rather than continuing disucssion. Skyerise (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you agree or disagree that there are exemptions from the three-revert rule for certain policy violations? If it is the latter then I suggest you read WP:EDITWAR. It is the only relevant thing here despite your claims to the contrary. You have a personal problem with the page (which you find to be reverse racist) and have been attempting to disrupt its creation since it was a paragraph long. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Only for reverting clear vandalism; there is no exception for reverting an editor with whom you are clearly having a dispute. My tag placement and changes were clearly not vandalism, but a good faith and sincere effort to resolve issues with the article. When there are three citations at the end of a sentence, it is completely reasonable to ask which of the three supports a particular adjective. There is no harm leaving a citation request on an article for other editors who might see more clearly how to resolve the problem. Tags are not personal. Skyerise (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EDITWAR, [r]everting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. Flagrant patterns of disruptive editing in order to censor or bog down the creation of an article is blatantly against policy. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was trying to help you by suggesting that you self-revert your last revert. If you choose to dig yourself in deeper by making false accusations against me, well, expect a longer block. No skin off my nose. Skyerise (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In order to be a false accusation it would have to be false. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ascribing false motivations to other editors is lying. Unless you are claiming to be psychic? Skyerise (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Our very first interaction on this website was a claim that I was creating an attack page to denigrate white people. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is a valid concern which was based on the content of the article and motivated only because I don't think we should split an article just to make it easier to attack a single race. My only concern here is improving Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So when you ascribe false motivations to other editors, it's in good faith and you're only trying to improve Wikipedia. But if you think someone is doing it, it's a nasty lie and they should be blocked even longer...even if you have  been disrupting the page and have said multiple times you have a personal problem with it as you consider it to be racist. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have no idea whether you are a racist or not. My concern is solely with how you are presenting information in an article, and edit-warring to preserve flaws that could be interpreted as racially-biased rather than collaborating on how to rewrite parts to avoid that impression. Skyerise (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

As you can see, the editor is clearly engaging in tendentious editing, and is unwilling to consider how the appearance of racism in an article might harm Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I legitimately cannot believe how little self-awareness you must have to even make claims like this. You've literally censored multiple mentions of race, despite its presence in the sources and the relevance to the page (which discusses the globalization of Tibetan Buddhism and contains a lengthy discussion of one academic's thoughts on how white Westerns want to inhabit Tibetan bodies through the tulku system.) That isn't what I'm saying, that is what the is saying. You've also added  templates to statements which were clearly sourced. And you've attempted to unilaterally merge the pages without consensus despite pushback, going as far as to claim prose I wrote specifically for the Western tulku page -- to introduce the political nature of the system and  globalization and adoption by Westerners is relevant -- as a duplicate from the more general Tulku page. You've claimed I am venue shopping despite creating simultaneous proposals to delete and merge and now misrepresenting this entire debacle as a mere edit war. And you've claimed that I am casting aspersions despite your admittance on multiple pages that you think I have racial motivations for creating the page. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Westerns want to inhabit Tibetan bodies through the tulku system". Really? You can't request to be recognized as a tulku. That's a completely Tibetan decision. There is no cultural appropriation here; if anything, Tibetan lamas are foisting this recognition on, in several cases, Western children as well as adults as a form of proselytism to expand Buddhism into Western culture. Your whole idea is that these Western children, who were not even old enough to have started to practice Dharma, somehow manipulated adult lamas into claiming they were tulkus so that maybe in their next life they could become Tibetans again? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Skyerise (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Literally nome of this is relevant. That is what the academic in question says and it is a WP:RS when properly attributed. I'm sorry if they offended you as a white Tibetan Buddhist (I'm not, once again talk to heritage Buddhists about why this offends you.) If you don't like it, then write your own paper, get it published in a peer-reviewed journal or monograph, and add it to the page. You keep going into this tangent about how this or that isn't cultural appropriation but that isn't . It doesn't matter if you think this person is (or I am) racist or that we are trying to commit white genocide by talking about it (or talking about people talking about it, in my case.) It doesn't matter. Stop censoring WP:RSs because you disagree. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote the source directly: The longing for a Tibetan body, or more precisely, the longing to discover that one's Western body is actually a vessel holding a Tibetan identity, reveals something of the symbolic potency that Tibetan-ness continues to hold for so many in the West. This is attributed to the person in question, Abraham Zablocki, in the book TransBuddhism which he co-authored. Like it or not. You don't get to decide that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia because you disagree with it. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 18:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So Zablocki is ridiculous. Almost all tulku are recognized as children. The only two Western tulku recognized as adults were both recognized by Penor Rinpoche, who in one case was accused of accepting money in exchange for this recognition, which he denied. He claims to have consulted other lamas before recognizing them - but the only source for this is Penor Rinpoche himself - none of the other lamas have acknowledged their involvement, nor do third-party sources support his claim. What we have here is one rogue lama recognizing Western adults as tulku. Of the two he recognized, only Seagal - who is not a lama - has legitimate criticism. The criticism of Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo does not rise above hearsay; she has finished the required training and retreat and administers a center, which I have visited, though I did not meet her. The center's practices are completely tradition Tibetan, which I was able to join as I had compatible empowerments. I will be taking the whole matter to WP:BLP, since this is a biography of living persons issue, and we need more to support the accusations against the Jetsunma (a high title) that what you have provided. I requested quotations, but you have not supplied them. Time to get more eyes of this clear BLP issue. Skyerise (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * More venue shopping, eh? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It can't be venue shopping when I've made no complaints in any venue except - on your insistence - taking the article to AfD. Skyerise (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Proposal to merge, proposal to delete, reporting for edit warring, canvassing the deletion discussion, now BLP... MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been a member of the Wikiproject forever. Have you bothered to note that I have over 100,000 edits and have been an editor for nearly 17 years? Let's see: you haven't even hit 3000 edits yet. Have you even once stopped to consider that I may be right? In any case, merge templates and talk page discussion are not "Venues". That's for noticeboards. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't care how many edits you have, how long you've edited Wikipedia, or how long you've been a Tibetan Buddhist. Luckily Wikipedia isn't a medieval Tibetan feudal polity where you have some authority over me and none of that is relevant. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 19:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever. You can't both tell me to take it to Afd and then tell me to take it to BLPN, and then claim venue shopping when I follow your advice. Skyerise (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I tell you these things because you are threatening me with them, not because I necessarily want you to. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently, what I consider a friendly heads-up, you consider to be a threat. It doesn't seem very wise to say the opposite of what you mean. Sarcasm doesn't go over very well on Wikipedia or any other text-only media. Making yourself out to be the "victim" when you do so is transparently disingenuous. And in case you actually care, it's not right speech. The article violates this Buddhist ideal by being intentionally divisive. Skyerise (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a "friendly heads up". It is a . When you tell me that if I don't merge the pages you'll mark it for deletion, that is a . When you tell me that you're going to mark the page for speedy deletion if I don't remove mentions of race, that is a . There is no sarcasm here. I don't care how long you've edited Wikipedia. I don't care if you were Catherine Burrough's best friend in high school. I don't care if you're a sorcerer who will do a death curse on me. If you mark it for speedy deletion, I'm going to oppose it. If you bring this up at WP:BLP, I'm going to oppose it and link the previous discussions. If you leave a voice-mail on Jimmy Wales' answering machine, well, I don't think he'd care very much but I'd still oppose it in spirit. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already brought it up there. It's a content board, you are not mentioned, and there is no requirement to notify you, but there it is... Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally think you should heed User:Black Kite's suggestion to calm down. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Black Kite has not communicated with me. Perhaps that message was intended for you? Skyerise (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't follow WP:AN; that's an admin to admin noticeboard that you have misused twice and been (mostly) ignored twice. I might reply there if pinged, but why should I follow a notice posted in the wrong venue? Skyerise (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They moved it to WP:ANI and suggested that you calm down before you receive a block. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly calm. What about you? Skyerise (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a "friendly heads up" to maybe stop engaging in disruptive editing and wikilawyering or trying to throw your weight around as a senior editor. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My work here is done. Editors with more BLP experience have already started to edit the article for the problems I've noted. Try not to revert them too. Skyerise (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's just been you so far. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 21:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:109.10.203.187 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 1183693305 by Asparagusus (talk) improving citations - for the Endocrine Society, the AAP as well as the Cass Review is in now way a soapbox and indeed provides better sourcing to _both_ of these perspectives"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183692369 by Yoshi24517 (talk) There is no advocacy and indeed the updated page contains improved citations for both those who believe gender dysphoria should be treated with medicalization as well as noting that Sweden, Finland and England have a differing view."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1183691576 by Patient Zero (talk) previous revert seemed to be a mistake .. there was no reference to gay conversion therapy"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1183690176 by LilianaUwU (talk) There is no discussion or reference to gay conversion therapy whatsoever .. revert made no sense .."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts, soapboxing as well.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 23:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note to admins: they have been warned here —asparagusus   (interaction)  <sup style="color:#050">sprouts!  23:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I already added it above lol, but thanks!  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 23:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yoshi24517: Ah, I suppose there was an edit conflict. Sorry about that haha! —asparagusus   (interaction)  <sup style="color:#050">sprouts!  23:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I was mentioned here: I think in addition to edit warring, this also constitutes WP:TE, and merits a block upon that basis also. Patient Zerotalk 23:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. —asparagusus   (interaction)  <sup style="color:#050">sprouts!  23:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, we all hate the edit conflicts that don't show up.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 23:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Galobtter (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:Mindaur (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 
 * WP:3O request:

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

Comments:

I made a change in the template and it was disputed by Mewulwe. After the initial exchange of views through reverts, I started the discussion in the talk page, but no agreement was reached. I formally requested WP:3O where a neutral editor provided an opinion. Mewulwe ignored the outcome and continued edit warring, despite two other editors ( and ) informing Mewulwe of the formal process and warning against edit warring. In the end, I created an RfC to make sure there is a clear consensus. However, Mewulwe demonstrated prolonged edit warring, disrespectful behaviour towards other editors and, ultimately, the violation of the WP:3RR. --Mindaur (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely bad faith. I could list Mindaur's reverts just the same. It was a 1-1 dispute, where Mindaur left the discussion at some point and still reverted. IOHANNVSVERVS then came as WP:3O and admitted he was not competent to judge the issue, yet superficially took Mindaur's side and reverted for him. But even if he had offered a considered opinion in favour of Mindaur's position, that would just have been a 2-1 situation which of course would not have settled the matter and would not have allowed them to "have their way" on the numbers alone. GoodDay was a pure stalker, as I have explained on the talk page, which can easily be verified and whose mention further illustrates Mindaur's bad faith here. Mewulwe (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's a complete lie that I violated 3RR. Mewulwe (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(commenting, as I was pinged here) I thought this content dispute ended on November 1, 2023. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

PS - I see that an RFC has been opened up at the Template-in-question. Hopefully, its result will put an end to the content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Mindaur. Unfortunately Mewulwe has been disruptive and uncivil in this content dispute. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * in full by for a month (presumably it will be lifted before then). Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Having similar problems today with the user in question over at the Sawar Khan page. He continues to edit war, even after warnings. His argument this time is the news source I used to cite a DOB is circular (i.e. he is accusing them of copying his DOB from Wikipedia). When I pushed him for a response on this, the best I got back was the equivalent to "seriously just trust me bro", then he continues to change it back and won't engage constructively. Looking at this user's talk page, it's apparent he's been a nuisance for some time now. Surely time to consider a ban? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. The very fact that, over years, a number of people complain on my talk page must be ipso facto proof that *I* am a "nuisance," not that other nuisances were dealt with by me. Jkaharper here plays the exact game of Mindaur, absurdly accusing me of edit warring in the same moment he is himself reverting. I explained myself in the edit summaries, the second got accidentally cut off when I was going to say what I then added on the talk page. Mewulwe (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Editor8220 reported by User:StAnselm (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Not actually breaking 3RR, but a clear case of edit warring: use made a change and then restored it three times, over the objections of three different editors. Continued to revert after a talk page warning. StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Last edit also appears to have been a self-revert. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Monaguptadimts reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Editing while logged out?

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ES: Company Structure
 * 2)  Four edits, no ES.
 * 3)  No ES
 * 4)  No ES
 * 5)  Two edits, no ES
 * 6)  Edit by  No es Editing while logged out?
 * 7)  No ES

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No EW notice for anon.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. Request to leave an ES was left on Monaguptadimts' talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:14.99.63.2 - first edit to talk page was a welcome and EWN notice.

Comments:

Monaguptadimts is an wp:SPA who has only edited Delhi Integrated Multi-Modal Transit System. Monaguptadimts' account was created 31 Oct which was their first edit. Monaguptadimts removes content and citations; adds content w/o a citation. Except for latest edit, no edit summaries have been added. Content added is not obvious vandalism and may be correct but for not being sourced. A COI was added to Monaguptadimts' talk page. The anon also has only edit this article. Somewhat similar edits. A request to explain edits was added to Monaguptadimts' talk page, but the only reply was a request to be allowed to edit the page. Adakiko (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * . Page also semi-protected for 2 days. Aoidh (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

User:HJ Mitchell reported by User:ThatzToMunch (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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: here

Comments:

User shows WP:BITE activity against users closing AFD discussions after they're a week old, on that they're directly WP:INVOLVED in. --That's Too Much. 16:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reporter indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Xxx2023 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Xxx2023 has repeatedly included material about Jolie's comments about the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Not only is the topic contentious, but I've repeatedly voiced WP:NPOV concerns about the way the material is framed as well as its inclusion in the first place. In addition, these edits do not adhere to WP:BLPUNDEL (since the source cited is not high-quality and therefore does not demonstrate that due weight has been met) and WP:FAOWN. KyleJoan talk 15:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Based on Xxx2023's request that I "do not censor content here", view that "this is not a communist platform where only a few can decide the final outcome", and assertion that they were going to "wait until tomorrow" to "retrieve my content" and continue to revert, I don't believe they should be editing around contentious topics and featured articles. KyleJoan talk 15:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Elon Musk is totally right about everything he said about Wikipedia. History is written by victors, but these days, written by those "L" who can edit Wikipedia pages, and decide what should be kept and what to censor. That user is allowed to revert thrice, ask for censorship. Wikipedia is really in danger with those people, remember what happened to Twitter! Technology was invented to help people, yet it is sadly controlled by "the few" who only care to enforce their creed! Xxx2023 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadly, neither WP:BLPUNDEL nor WP:A/I/PIA seem to have been explained to, who is now finally formally aware. If violations of these restrictions continue, please let me know. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

User:82.128.237.177 reported by User:Jkudlick (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1183789896 by Robby.is.on (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183779812 by Kante4 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1183763068 by Robby.is.on (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1179657086 by Robby.is.on (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Wu Lei."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent additions by 82.128.237.177 */ Fix typo."

Comments:

IP editor did engage in the discussion started at Talk:Wu Lei, but this seems to be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The page is now semi-protected (thanks, ), so these edits can already not continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

User:2607:F140:400:141:91D6:37CF:AA3C:313B reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: /64 blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1183880729 by Yoshi24517 (talk)A list of all species is not encyclopedia. It is explicitly prohibited by guidelines."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183880641 by AgisdeSparte (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1183880570 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1183880366 by AgisdeSparte (talk)This list does not belong here; check it."

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:

4 reverts.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 02:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Block by applies to the /64.
 * Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Abrasax123 reported by User:LucasKannou (Result:Blocked 31 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1183897116 by Hzted6 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1183896605 by Hzted6 (talk) That's not my responsibility. If you don't like the Arsi source, change it yourself."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1183895776 by Hzted6 (talk) Why are you undoing the first image? It has a back up source using your logic."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1183895551 by Hzted6 (talk) You just gave up huh. Now you know who is in the wrong."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1183895169 by Hzted6 (talk) Now you are just being childish."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1183894426 by Hzted6 (talk) Why change it? I did what was satisfactory according to you."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has made over four reverts in less than fourty-eight hours. LucasKannou (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * By Ymblanter. (not an admin) Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

User:2607:F140:6000:8037:ACB9:52A7:8CBF:4D66 reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: /64 blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Typo"
 * 2)  "Uncensored"
 * 3)  "Added recent info"
 * 4)  "Updated"
 * 5)  "Added important info you allow to be censored"
 * 1)  "Added important info you allow to be censored"

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. Been reverted multiple times, was reverted on this exact edit a couple weeks ago by MaterialScientist. Is also threatening on their talk page to wreak havoc on the wiki as well.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 23:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd already blocked the /64 based on the threats on their talk page while you were putting together this report.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh haha, was in the process of correcting the report anyways because I messed something up, but thanks Ponyo, appreciated.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 23:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't said here, IP /64 range was by Ponyo. (not an admin)  Yoshi24517  ( Chat ) ( Online ) 23:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

User:StardustToStardust reported by User:Prcc27 (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 5th revert
 * 2) 4th revert
 * 3) 3rd revert
 * 4) 2nd revert
 * 5) 1st revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

This user has made several reverts, most of which undid my edits to the article. In their 5th revert they restored the article back to their own wording (I tweaked it to “seems to have”). Their 4th revert was them restoring the article back to how it was before I removed editorialization. Their 3rd revert removed the discuss tag I added in the infobox since we were (and still are) trying to get consensus on whether RFK Jr. should be in the infobox. I tried to get them to revert their “4th revert” (which I now realize might have actually been their 5th revert), but they have not restored the article (see here). Prcc27 (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * from the article. While the user stopped reverting after yesterday, they were rather enthusiastic about it, and this is an article in a contentious topic and their talk page shows they have been made aware of this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify if the user is allowed to edit the article’s talk page? I was surprised to see them still participating on that article’s RfC during their ban, but maybe the ban doesn’t apply to the article’s talk page..? Please advise. Prcc27 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I blocked them only from the article. This way they have to participate in talk page discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

User:QamarBurtuqali reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
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:


 * I do think it would be better if more people had made more of an effort to engage on the talk page. However, it does seem consensus is clearly against this user, and they nonetheless keep reverting long past the 3RR. --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Response:

I discussed the problem on the Talk Page of the Hijab article. Various editors (apparently using various logins?) have reverted several of my edits without giving any explanation in the History Page. Many reverted several edits in one swoop of a single tool revert and never gave any explanation. Many reverted my edits within minutes and never gave an explanation and therefore, it appears THEY were engaging in Edit Warring. None addressed the conflict in the Talk Page.

Please review my edits of the Hijab article. I am seeking a impartial resolution of the ongoing conflict.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali


 * @QamarBurtuqali Since I am participating here in an uninvolved, administrative capacity, I have to look not at the merits of your material but on the overall actions of all editors at the article and talk page. I agree with that there is a clear consensus against your additions to the article. You will have to discuss the changes at Talk:Hijab and get consensus for the changes before you change the article. Any attempts to add the material without doing so are edit warring, plain and simple. —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I added these two sentences under Hijab/In Islamic Scripture/Quran in a detailed paragraph about "Islamic commentators generally agree ..." :

"In particular, an early Muslim scholar noted that 7th century Arabian slave women      went around bare-breasted, inviting harassment.       During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked       "

I added these two sentences to establish historical context of 7th century Arabia. Both sentences are constructive to the discussion. Both citations are appropriate, are historical (not religious) and the citations are correct.

Editor @Barbardo reverted both sentences because he asserted that "The second hadith diesn't mention women being harassed or about slave women and the first reference doesn't say the verse was revealed for slave women." Apparently, @Barbardo does not even understand the difference between a "verse" and a "hadith." Moreover, according to @Barbardo's Talk Page, he has a long history of reverts and has been accused of Edit Warring.

I cited an early Muslim scholar, to establish the <I>historical</I> fact that 7th century Arabian slave women went around bare-breasted. I cited a Hadith as a <I>historical citation</I> (not as a religious citation) to establish the historical fact that "During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked."

I added these two sentences to support the topic sentence "The Islamic commentators generally agree this verse refers to sexual harassment of women of Medina." The paragraph is discussing the historical context of the Quran verse 33:59: "O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed." It is important to give historical evidence that the public nakedness of women in 7th Arabia seemed to invite harassment and early Muslims noted that public nakedness was contrary the advice of Qur'an 33:59.

I stated all of the above in the Hijab Talk Page. I welcome an unbiased review of my edit. I am seeking an unbiased resolution here.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali


 * for edit warring and violating the 3RR after warning. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Lifetrance reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Do not Undo edits without a strong rationale. If you need to, you can discuss your reasoning on the Talk page. "Disliking" an edit is not grounds for an Undo."
 * 2)  "My edit is a direct quote from the DSM-V-TR. It is fundamental to the etiology of trans women and their sexuality, and thus important and relevant. The onus is on you to demonstrate that it somehow *doesn't* belong here."
 * 3)  "I have exhaustively discussed why this is the appropriate wording on the Talk page. This now amounts to ideological revision warring. Do not Undo edits without a strong rationale."
 * 4)  "This isn't a matter of "consensus", this is a matter of Wikipedia "default to original after No Consensus", so this Undo was inappropriate."
 * 5)  "Scientific "consideration" implies evidence; it is not speculative. The DSM-5-TR is an authority that reflects scientific consensus. An "Undo" is only appropriate if scientific consensus changes."
 * 6)  "Apply the correct "default to original" wording of "person". See Talk: Frozen contentious statement in lead"
 * 7)  "/* Sexuality */ Include predisposing factors per 2022 DSM revision"
 * 1)  "/* Sexuality */ Include predisposing factors per 2022 DSM revision"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  issued by Funcrunch

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Trans woman and Talk:Trans woman

Comments:

Though there is a pair of consecutive involved in diff 4, has breached 3RR by making at least 4 reverts (or 6, depending on how you want to count diffs 5 and 6) in the last few hours. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * by . Marking as resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Subsequently indefinitely blocked sitewide.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User:LucenseLugo reported by User:Fromcs (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I'm LucenseLugo. This user keeps adding back unsourced content despite being warned on this page's talk page, on his own talk page and in his IP talk page. He doesn't have any desire to do anything as I have told him several times and I have also recommended him to read WP:GUIDELINES to refrain himself from adding unsourced content to Wikipedia.

In fact, the user Carlstak reverted him as well in the page Castellón de la Plana and this user didn't care at all as well. Now he says I'm edit warring because I have reverted his change were he was putting back unsourced text (see all the edit diffs he has shown) while I have recalled on his WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior on his talk page.

I take profit of this ANI to say this user seems a WP:SPA account based on his edits with this account as with several other accounts. The most recent ones being and  which have a strong Valencian nationalism WP:BIAS POV, and they also edit similar if not the same pages. --LucenseLugo (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Carlstak revision was the stable version, which is why I never reverted his changes (you only need to look at the page history). So that claim ("this user didn't care at all as well") is just false. Your edit, on the contrary, was simply an undiscussed change.--Fromcs (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The stable version was the one made by the user "The Night Watch" in 4th November 2023: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castell%C3%B3n_de_la_Plana&oldid=1183499951 Carlstak actually reverted your edits (although not all of them) and your claims of "undiscussed change" are actually referring to some unsourced content you kept adding. I asked for a source 1 week ago and you didn't provide it, but just directly came to revert to include again and again that unsourced content.
 * When I have told you to stop putting unsourced content in both your talk page and Castellón's talk page, you couldn't care less and you kept re-reverting.
 * Also your 4th edit diff proof from above is an edit I made in 3th November. I did 3 reverts as of today but one was based on your 6th November edit and I told you that you should not put unsourced content as of WP:GUIDELINES which you completely ignored. So you reported me because you want to keep text that is unsourced. What sense does that make? LucenseLugo (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please note, also engaged in page move disruption today, reverting the move of the same editor  to move Montichelvo back from its long term stable title to their preferred title after their first move was reverted. The correct course of action would have been to open a formal WP:RM discussion to discuss the new title per WP:BOLDMOVE. Polyamorph (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here it was my bad because I didn't know I have to open a WP:RM if someone else undo the name change, although the page Montichelvo had less than 50 edits (without counting the ones from today) since it was created in 2007 and someone changed from Montichelvo to Montitxelvo (and in this case there is no clear English-prevailing name as it's just a small town between mountains) without any reason in 2011 despite being the official name Montichelvo/Montitxelvo since 2006 and just Montichelvo before 2006, so the other co-official name was completely wiped out for no reason. In fact, the user Fromcs even deleted the official name leaving it blank despite being bilingual and the official one.
 * I recognise my mistake there because I didn't know 1 single change after another change is considered disruptive. But in the case of Castellón de la Plana (the reason I got reported here by the other user) is just because I have deleted unsourced content which that user was inserting without any proper source despite being asked and warned for a source over the past 7 days. LucenseLugo (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

User:67.84.203.109 and User:CR1MS0NXV1P3R reported by User:YannickFran (Result: Referred to SPI)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) ; not done by the same user but by, themselves admitting to do this in request of IP user
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: none, but have attempted to request further discussion here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This was a discussion started in August, without any further feedback I decided to move forward with the proposed changes. Have requested multiple times for IP to take it up on the talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 67.84.203.109:, CR1MS0NXV1P3R:

Comments:

User has repeatedly refused to discuss changes made that were suggested back in August without disputes. And has reverted the page multiple times to an earlier state, including instances where reverts undid various other changes across the page. IP claims having been "working for years" and in another instance claims "countless hours and effort put on by me" on the article. Further claims include other editors and myself having to "keep everything as I wrote it". IP user also added a hostile comment on my personal talk page on an unrelated discussion.

IP user subsequently accepted the split up of the table in their edit summary for, but then continued to warn that they intend to revert these changes anyways in the edit summary of. Changes were then reverted less than an hour later by, an account created within that hour.

I've included the aforementioned user as they are either being directed by the IP user in reverting these changes, or given their similar writing style in edit summaries, use of practically the same rhetoric and the fact that CR1MS0NXV1P3R was created earlier today on November 5th despite claiming that "our years of editing work has been compromised" strongly suggests that this is a sock of IP user or at the very least solely created to continue reverting these changes under IP user's directions.

Other users have appeared in agreement with the irrelevance of the removed content.
 * What you’re alleging here seems even closer to sockpuppetry than edit warring. I would refer you to SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Theatrefan101 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:41, 9 November 2023
 * 2) 20:39, 9 November 2023
 * 3) 11:03, 9 November 2023
 * 4) 23:27, 8 November 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk:Rebecca_(musical)%23Edit_warring

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

Comments:

Despite several requests in edit summaries and on their Talk page, the editor has continued to make the same changes that, among other things, remove well-cited information and add WP:PROMO/WP:UNDUE information. They have ignored all requests to discuss their views on the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Like many well-intended ANEW reports, this gets to four reverts only through mistakenly counting the reported editor’s original edit as a revert. Since then they have made only three reverts. Let’s hope that has been enough to get it; I could easily change my mind about this based on Theatrefan’s behavior going forward. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:133.106.216.64 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: version as of 15:29, 30 October 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * revert #1 as IP 133.106.55.170
 * revert #2 as IP 133.106.206.172
 * revert #3 as IP 133.106.216.64

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: first warning and second warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Article talk page discussion started by Bruce leverett after seeing my post on their user talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:133.106.216.64 and User talk:133.106.206.172

Comments:

An IP editor is engaged in a content dispute over wording in the article Shogi. The IP boldly made a change to the article here that was subsequently reverted by here. The IP reverted again here and then posted this and this on Bruce leverett's user talk page. Bruce leverett responded to the post and reverted again here which was followed by another revert by the IP here. I noticed all of the reverting since the article was on my watchlist, and reverted back to last stable version here. I then posted this on Bruce leverett's talk page advising both users to resolve things through discussion on the article's talk page. I also added welcome-anon-t and uw-ewsoft templates to User talk:133.106.206.172. The IP responded to the warning, and I then informed them here that Bruce levertt had started a discussion about the matter at Talk:Shogi and that they were welcome to join the discussion. The IP responded again, and I advised them once more here that they could join the discussion on the article's talk page. The IP responded again, and then decided to revert back to their preferred version yet again. Since the IP editor seems to be using a new IP address (,, , , , and ) almost every time they post, WP:SILVERLOCK or WP:BLUELOCK might be preferred to trying to block accounts. The PP can be removed once a consensus has been reached on the article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * for 10 days per above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am trying to continue the discussion on the article's talk page, and I hope that the level of protection will not prevent the IP from making replies on that talk page. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Fromcs (Result: Article fully protected for three days)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has violated the three-revert rule twice in less than 24 hours. A report was already filled against him (see above), which turned out to be positive, but the user did not get blocked - he was just urged to discuss. The main problem that this user has is that, whenever one of his changes gets reverted, he does not wait for discussion. While he does open discussions on the talk page, he seems to think that discussion should take place while his version (i.e. the non-stable version) is still the one being shown on the page. I reverted many of his changes to the stable version, but he kept re-reverting instead of waiting for consensus. As I said above, this user had already violated 3RR. See the discussion above. P.S. This time I failed to warn him not to perform a third revert within a 24 hour period. However, he had been warned only a few hours before, regarding another edit warring. Here is the diff.


 * There is no 3RR break as the 1st edit (9th November) literally says "deleting this as no one provided a source over the past week" as it can be seen in the page's history, I have asked for a source in 3th November and this user instead of providing a source he just bolded some text. I have performed 2 reverts and I have warned this user to stop reverting as the next one would be his 3rd revert despite he's adding unsourced WP:VERIFIABILITY content and he didn't even engage in the page's talk page despite falsely claiming to "wait for consensus" he just wants to add unsourced content directly breaking WP:VERIFIABILITY once again.


 * Yesterday, he made the same again insisting in putting unsourced content in the page Castellón de la Plana, he reported me and an admin closed the case and said that is content dispute which has to he talked. Today, instead of following the admin'a advice (this user wants me blocked so bad) he started dogfighting again in the page Costa del Azahar and I have warned himself in his talk page, pinged himself in Costa's talk page but he couldn't care less as he kept reverting with 0 engagement in any talk pages. He also repeats the word consensus without even proposing anything in the talk page, ignoring every single Wikipedia rule.


 * I also want to say that the user has an obsession with me since I have pointed his edits against WP:NPOV with several other IPs/accounts in different wikipages. Since I acknowledged who he is, now he made this account targeting and reverting almost every edit I make despite my several attempts in 5 different talk pages to show him to follow WP:GUIDELINES, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY and now he opens a false 3RR accusation while it's clear my 1st edit he presented as "the 1st revert" is in fact a simple deletion of unsourced content. I have performed 2 reverts in that page.
 * But I take advantage of this false accusation to ask to do something against this WP:SPA new account that is not only harassing me in every page I edit, but also because he does the same in several articles, also breaking WP:NPA in several talk pages should as he has done today in Talk:Costa del Azahar making false claims against my edits or myself (just because I ask him for sources to back up his claims) or yesterday in the page Talk:Montichelvo so 2 personal attacks in less than 24 hours and 2 ANIs opened, one of them closed by an admin asking for content dispute (which this user completely ignored) and now a false one since I didn't even do 3 reverts. --LucenseLugo (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * in full for three days. The two of you have been the only ones editing the article this month. Fromcs is correct that Lucense should not be reverting during the talk discussion, but it’s never productive to revert those reverts on those grounds … that’s a sure way to end up here, still arguing about the argument instead of the page. You two are arguing and edit-warring over an article barely above stub status. Take a look at yourselves. In addition to focusing on discussion during the block, feel free to post notices in the appropriate places for other knowledgeable editors to join the discussion in order to reach a consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, although the only problem here is that the user didn't want to engage in the talk page despite myself pinging himself there and my notice on his talk page. He just reverted and reverted until he created this report. So he doesn't even want to engage in the talk page to reach a point or something. But despite all of that, I will still try to make it comprehend how WP:VERIFIABILITY works. Thanks. LucenseLugo (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:TheBigDrew reported by User:Jaufrec (Result: indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Attanasio&diff=prev&oldid=1184476185
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Attanasio&diff=prev&oldid=1184199649
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Attanasio&diff=prev&oldid=1184059117
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Attanasio&diff=prev&oldid=1184057706

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheBigDrew&diff=prev&oldid=1184488718

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Obvious vandalism. User has been reverted by two different editors on this page, and another editor on a |related page, and notified on their own talk page (see above).

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

Comments:

Jaufrec (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * These edits were not made within a 24-hour time period, so WP:3RR is not met. But, this is a vandalism-only account. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:‎Noam111g reported by User:Writ Keeper (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: User has already been blocked for similar unsourced edits, though above is the first warning for strictly edit-warring. Trying to insert unsourced additions to a MEDRS article over the objections of other editors; some relatively unproductive discussions on talk page, but edit-warring continued throughout. Some attempt at sourcing was given, but it was obviously not sufficient; user continued to blindly restore after objections were raised to the sources. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Wukuendo reported by User:0xDeadbeef (Result: Blocked 72 hours from article
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:, and also this warning in March

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

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

Comments:


 * User has been POV pushing and repeatedly edit warring to maintain their preferred version of the article (which does not mention that the programming language is in beta). They have previously made a request on DRV which was closed for making too many conduct claims to be about the content itself. A p-block might be needed so more constructive discussions can be had on the talk page. <span style="font-family:Iosevka,monospace">0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * from article. While Wukuendo has been even-tempered and civil in his tone, he has been tendentiously obstinate here, continuing to restore his preferred version even through long discussions currently consuming half the talk page and now on DRN, discussions in which nothing remotely close to consensus favoring his version has been reached, and during which he has chiefly argued whataboutism and abandoned any pretense of good faith with (as far as I can tell) baseless allegations of a conflict of interest against another editor in response to merely being asked if he had a relationship with anyone involved with the development of V (a question he has never responded to). In this case I consider the reporter’s suggestion of a partial block an excellent idea, although I am far from certain it will have the desired effect.  Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely understand the context and necessity of deciding if edit warring had occurred, but am having trouble with understanding: incorrect statements of facts that are on public record, involving other matters that seem outside of that context, or to impugn my character.
 * 1) Baseless allegations of a conflict of interest against another editor
 * The allegation made wasn't viewed as baseless, but based on that an editor involved in the dispute was teaching and being a contributing developer of a competing programming language. This information is on their talk page, on public record, including external links. Therefore it was considered valid to raise the question if the actions by the editor on V's article were an attempt to remove it, remove the editor(s) that created it, or to be disruptive. This would include to clarify if they were being paid by any competing organizations.
 * In regards to the exchange of allegations, it can be viewed that it was agreed by both parties (facilitated through various forms of mediation by other editors) to focus on the particulars of the article and not pursue either claim.
 * 2) The version of the article that exists is not my version, but mostly of other editors.
 * I did the research and added many of the sources, then submitted the draft to be an article. However, the creation of it and basic structure of the article (this includes its sections) was done by numerous other editors. After it was promoted to an article, the editor who is involved in the dispute rewrote and pushed his version of it. Edits that were made, were to his version of the article.
 * The basis of contention with other editors (who appear to have worked on the Rust article), was any edits that I made to their version, were considered violations. The appearance was given that only they were allowed to revert, remove, reword, or hide information. Including not getting consensus on V's talk for many of their changes or even giving explanations in V's edit history. The back and forth had a lot to do with fairness and interpretations of Wikipedia rules.
 * It was also myself who pushed that disputes about specifics in the article be resolved on V's talk page. And have tried very hard to find compromises with other editors.
 * 3) Factually incorrect characterizations.
 * I have not only on that editor's talk page (pleas check), but on V's talk page (please check there to), directly responded to the claim. I completely understand the context of deciding if edit warring had occurred, but am not understanding incorrect statements of facts that are on public record (in 2 different locations).
 * 4) Fairness
 * I'm just asking for programming language articles to be judged and edited in a fair way and process. Where it doesn't look like an unequal and unfair standard is being applied or the impression of bias.  Volunteered time to Wikipedia for doing research and adding to drafts, not to instigate or be involved in drama.  So these series of events are really astonishing to me.
 * Thanks for your time and consideration
 * Wukuendo (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is to note the first appeal/unblock request was declined. It's a learning experience for me and studying more on the processes for clarity. Respectfully Wukuendo (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "based on that an editor involved in the dispute was teaching and being a contributing developer of a competing programming language."
 * Just to set the record straight for now the 4th or 5th time: I am not involved in the development of Rust.
 * "The version of the article that exists is not my version, but mostly of other editors."
 * Wukuendo is the only one who has been pushing this version, four or five other editors have now voted against it (on most/all aspects). When reverting, Wukuendo often refers back to the AfC accepted version arguing that the fact it was published/reviewed by another editor means that it is impossible to make further improvements.
 * "merely being asked if he had a relationship with anyone involved with the development of V (a question he has never responded to)"
 * Wukuendo did respond in part on my talk page, stating: "I am not involved in the development of V, the V toolchain, or in any V organization. I am not paid by any V organization or any persons associated with it." I retracted the COI claim on that basis. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Acknowledged. I should reiterate that from what I reviewed you merely asked; you did not make any allegation of COI. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I did add the COI tag to the article itself (based on the writing -- not necessarily aimed at the user in question here). And the COI tag was later removed. Best, Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:SalamanderAI reported by User:Zenomonoz (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

3 warnings on talk page, all ignored:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

 Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:FDW777 reported by User:Nuncle Jimmy I (Result: No violation)
Page:

User:

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:

FDW777 has unilaterally removed source-supported content without discussion and reverts efforts to restore it. The source for the material removed in the CIA's own Book of Honor, which is posted as an image on the site itself. The talk page has been moribund since 2016, so I doubt that any message there will be answered. User FDW777 also has a history of edit warring and gaming, so I have reason to suspect that efforts to communicate might not be useful. Nuncle Jimmy I (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) you have only provided 3 examples, 2) they are not diffs, 3) they are days apart, 4) there is no 3RR warning. There is clearly no violation here. You need to resolve your content dispute at the talk page of the article in question. Polyamorph (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Drdpw reported by User:Where is Matt? (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:13, 11 November 2023
 * 2) 20:05, 9 November 2023
 * 3) 19:37, 9 November 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:

The user claims that the article's scope is limited to certain type of legislation. A discussion was opened to get consensus for limiting the scope. The discussion was reached to not limit the scope. refuses to respect the consensus, and is edit warring with edit summaries "you are wrong". Where is Matt? (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article's scope is limited to state legislation related to candidate eligibility to be elected to the office of President of the United States. A discussion was opened on a proposed page move to a longer title explicitly stating the scope of the article. The result of the discussion was not to move the article/change the title. There was not a decision to change the scope of the article.  insists that there was. That said, I think we could probably resolve this on the talk page if they are open to that. Drdpw (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The arguments against the name change made it clear that there was no need to restrict the scope of the article. There is no need to rehash the discussion made on the talk page. Drdpw's edit warring is a result of a refusal to accept consensus. Where is Matt? (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Malecide reported by User:E-960 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The list of the largest cities in Poland, as presented in the Lede section has been stable for many months prior to this flare-up (which was: "Kraków, Wrocław, Łódź, Poznań, Gdańsk, and Szczecin", however it got a bit confusing because recently several back and forth changes were made prior to today). However, around mid-July another editor started to change the order and added their choice cities into the list and a discussion on the talk page has been initiated at that time (here: ), however it did not yield a consensus for the changes. Now user Malecide has initiated yet another round of edits, changing the order and adding additional cities to the list. --E-960 (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC) This order, which had a simple rule (largest cites from 400,000 up) lasted from 2018 (here: []), with one change where Wrocław moved past Łodź. Now users are adding 9th or 11th largest cites, but not the 8th or the 10th, so it's a very subjective and inconsistent approach. --E-960 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet another editor who makes the mistake of repeatedly reverting during discussion where policy does not support that choice. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also put a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:82.128.237.177 reported by User:Jkudlick (Result: Blocked from article indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No one has the right to conceal facts that have already occurred."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* November 2023 */ My final words on this"
 * 2)   "/* November 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Page protection was lifted, and the IP user immediately added the contentious information again. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * from article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Gawaon reported by User:MartjnMap (Result: No violation, but should be discussed at AN/I)
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:

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

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

Comments: Refusing to respond to reasoning. Repeatedly misreading sources using machine translation since July.


 * . This does not mean no harm, no foul. Far from it. Gaowon’s behavior would be better served by review at AN/I; the tendentious aspects are better dealt with there. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

User:FaulDog reported by User:Tad Lincoln (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

This user has been adding personal opinions and analysis to the article. I have reverted multiple times on multiple days. I have explained that personal opinion and speculation is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. The user has also made personal attacks against me. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

User:154.80.8.229 reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Page protected for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Disruptive editing on First Anglo-Afghan War page: Falsely changing my talk page messages to make it seem like I agree with them.  Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The IP user has added unsourced content, as well as removing sources (as shown in the diff) to change the result of a battle to however they please. This user also disruptively edited the First Anglo-Afghan War page also shown in a diff above. Noorullah (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This IP user today attempted to change the messages I put on the talk page noticeboard to show that I agree with them. Noorullah (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For a week; CTOPS notice left on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

User:WeatherWriter reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: Resolved)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Content already merged"
 * 2)  "WP:BOLD merge into Siege of Gaza City. The siege of Azovstal steel plant during last year's Siege of Mariupol doesn't have a split article, so this small siege doesn't either."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit-warring on a WP:CTOP. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CONTENTFORK of 242 words (the whole content of the article that was merged) from Siege of Gaza City (with now 1,444 readable prose size post-merge). Merge was justified per WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:SPLIT. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is in development, as it's subject. You are alone reverting work of several editors. Please, self-revert, and go to the article's talk page (not mine). Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "The article is in developement" is not a valid argument, given there was (1) no discussion for a content-split and 2, the split was a total of 242 words over 4 hours ago. It didn't improve much at all in 4 hours and per WP:CONTENTFORK, it has to be merged into the parent article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest staying away from this topic for a while. You likely CAN be blocked right now because you were already warned of the 1RR. There need not be a discussion for a content split. That isn't required before creating a new article. Four hours is a very miniscule amount of time for improvement to occur. Generally, an acceptable time frame is a few days to a week before considering a merge. You effectively reverted several edits at once via your merge and then violated the 1RR restriction by reverting the unmerging. Don't be surprised if you end up blocked for a while since this would be ArbCom enforcement. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>, AA<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b> 21:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is some good advice which I plan to follow. I self-reverted and AfD nominated it as a CONTENTFORK and now I WP:COALed out and plan to stay away from that topic for a while. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * - I will note for the record that if an admin says I must self-revert, I will start an AfD or merge proposal on the article, due to it being only 242 words. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment from WeatherWriter - I have self-reverted as I did, in fact, violate 1RR. This was brought up by Hurricane Noah. I did, also, nominate the article for AfD after self-reverting. I appologize for violating 1RR and I did without thinking. At the same time this noticeboard was being written, I started a talk page discussion with the noticeboard filer, specifying that it was a contentfork. Either way, I self-reverted and the community will now get to decide whether it is a WP:CONTENTFORK or not. Cheers y'all! (FYI, I WP:COALed out of the AfD after the initial nomination. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * WeatherWriter reverted themselves, so I think it's resolved now. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

User:140.228.54.0 reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1185016218 by Yoshi24517 (talk)LEAVE the article alone. The City Line has been in the article for 20-25 years. Stop butchering the article."
 * 2)  "/* City Line */ clarified a little"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1185012864 by DankJae (talk)please leave the article alone! You not much of an idea at all."
 * 4)  "Many need to understand what the City Line is."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts, There have been discussions where there was no consensus to add the information that the IP wants to edit in, yet they keep doing it anyways. Will add warning link shortly.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( On Vacation ) 01:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment from DankJae - I am involved in this dispute trying to restore the original article, but reverted by the IP. Not fully aware of the 3RR process, so if I alerted them pre-maturely then willing to accept any sanction. The IP has added personal attacks towards me (here at Talk:Merseyrail), but understand if this is not the correct place. Thanks  Dank Jae  01:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have given no personal attacks. I have highlighted you lack understanding. Which is the case. You want to omit the existence a rail line, the City Line. You have been told where to look to gain understanding. This is laughable. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Quote from you at the talk: You clearly lack understanding. You are a nuisance. I am not batting the ball with someone of limited understanding, I will get nowhere with people like you - yes you did  Dank Jae  01:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I am putting back in the article information that has been there for 20-25 years. A editor DankJae comes along changes the article, because of lack of understanding, them demands consensus to get his way. The justification is on him to change the article after 20 odd years. He thinks it is the other way.
 * If he continues then he should receive a short ban to cool him down. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagreed with these comments at the talk page here, following them re-adding their edits.  Dank Jae  01:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus is how Wikipedia works. For more information, see this article on consensus. If we cannot agree on certain content (e.g. a content dispute), we open up a section on the talk page to try and talk it out and gain consensus for our edits first, before editing them into the article.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( On Vacation ) 01:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

User:David Jonion reported by User:Softlemonades (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1184990942 by Chaotic Enby (talk) //removing POV, unsourced materials introduced from a previously banned user who is trying to escalate things to a flame war. Please also note Wikipedia's policy against conflicts of interest"
 * 2)  "//removed unsourced, POV statements and a broken link"
 * 3)  "/* Jeffrey Epstein meetings */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1184989249 by Softlemonades (talk) //Softlemonades has been previously banned from Wikipedia for being a sock puppet. POV, unsourced links removed"
 * 5)  "//inserted recent news coverage about a clandestine trip to Cameroon and deleted broken link (footnote 16)"
 * 6)  "//inserted link about a recent visit to Cameroun"
 * 7)  "//reverted previous edits due to possible violation of the rule against editing your own page"
 * 1)  "//reverted previous edits due to possible violation of the rule against editing your own page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not assuming good faith on William_J._Burns_(diplomat)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned by several editors on their talk page, keeps blanking and accusing editors of COI and being banned Softlem (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The fact that they call everything they disagree with POV, don't assume good faith by not focusing on content and clearly are a Single-purpose account. I recommend at least a partial block from William J. Burns (diplomat). Nobody  ( talk ) 12:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

User:85.251.23.136 reported by User:Zmbro (Result: 72 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Following a block over edit warring over at Aladdin Sane, user has repeatedly changed info at List of best-selling albums of the 1970s in the United Kingdom over the course of days/weeks – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * review the list of NME and don't be painful or deluded... 85.251.23.136 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Sitewide. Looking at behaviour I'm suspecting a sockpuppet of but I don't have evidence. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

User:47.219.237.179 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * It's fair to say that consensus has not been established on the talk page; but plainly this level of reverting is past the threshold for EW, and, crucially, the user in question is the one proposing a change. Demanding that consensus be established to reverse that change and using repeated reverts to keep the change in place is getting the consensus thing a bit backwards. --AntiDionysius (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The IP is edit warring and there is no defence for that. I would point out, however, that it is arguable that the IP is not the one proposing the change. The first version of this edit appears to have arrived on 22 February, was challenged on 23rd February by a different editor, and was defended repeatedly by one editor through successive challenges, but lately by multiple editors. There is an argument that it should not have been put back in per WP:ONUS. There is also a good argument that more of this information should be in the main. At the moment it is novel information in the lead. Those opposing the edits are largely but not entirely IPs. I think this may be colouring editor perspectives. Nevertheless the edit warring is disruptive, and some of the talk arguments made by those opposing this information are spurious. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I never violated WP:3RR, and six reverts over the course of a week is not "edit warring". Moreover, I have been practically the only one to participate in talk page discussion regarding this recent dispute, other than AntiDionysius. As Sirfurboy also pointed out, I am not seeking consensus to make a change. That is not how consensus works. There was never consensus for the change to begin, which is putting trivial information, phrased in an unencyclopedic manner, in the lead. I was indeed also in the middle of submitting a dispute request here: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard as this edit warring allegation was made. My edits were never disruptive or compromised the integrity of the article. If other users want to claim that me reverting an article to its LGV is "edit warring", then I say WP:IAR protects my actions against the disruptive edits being made by a larger number of users. My only interest was in maintaining the sanctity of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.219.237.179 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But 3RR is not a target, and really there is little to be gained from reverting the information when you see multiple editors reverting your reverts. I think your attempt to get more eyes on this through dispute resolution may be the way to go, but I think admins would probably like to see a commitment from you not to revert this information again without gaining a consensus. There is nothing so pressing here that it has to go before dispute resolution reaches its conclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect, IP: IAR is not a free pass for edit warring, and neither is reverting to a "last good version" which happens to be the version you prefer. Six reverts over the course of a week might not constitute an edit war on a heavily edited article, but this revert war is literally the only thing happening on this article going back to at least 8 November. Also, when an article is protected because of a revert war, and immediately upon expiry one editor immediately reverts to their preferred version again, that's very likely to be considered protracted edit warring. Please proceed with dispute resolution, but do not revert again, or you will be blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then what exactly am I supposed to do? Beyond My Ken continues to revert the article into an unacceptable state without consensus, and has been doing so since February of this year as the logs show, refuses to engage in talk page discussion that isn't facetious, refuses to engage in my dispute resolution, and as was shown in this very report - is only interested in accusing me of sockpuppetry, being a Nazi, and in getting my IP blocked. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * per my comment above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just to state the obvious, 3RR is a bright line, but it is not the sole definition of edit warring, and the IP has clearly violated WP:EW by reverting multiple editors with accounts, all in the service of whitewashing an article about a Nazi street thug turned into a martyr by Joseph Goebbels. Multiple alphabet soup violations: WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:NONAZIS etc. etc. etc. The IP needs to have the book thrown at them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't file an SPI report because I have no idea who the master is, but the IPs history is typical of those IPs used by sockmasters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * At the same time, this could have been better handled by establishing consensus for the edit through discussion and then reverting the change with reference to the discussion, instead of dancing on the revert button for a whole week. IP is in the wrong, but I'm also not impressed with the established editors' behaviour here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry you're "not impressed", but I rather think that keeping articles about Nazis as accurate as possible is important work, and valuable to the encyclopedia. Those who work in that topic area know the kind on onslaught we're up against there, which is why it should be a Contentious Topic subject. Maybe if more admins paid attention to it things would be different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And actually come to think of it, I'm disappointed in you as an admin for rewarding egregious edit-warring with a warning, when a block was obviously called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Paki STJj reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Traditional fairs */"
 * 2)  "/* Notable places */"
 * 3)  "/* Name origin */"
 * 4)  "/* Name origin */"
 * 5)  "/* Geography and climate */"
 * 6)  "/* References */"
 * 7)  "/* References */"
 * 1)  "/* Traditional fairs */"
 * 2)  "/* Notable places */"
 * 3)  "/* Name origin */"
 * 4)  "/* Name origin */"
 * 5)  "/* Geography and climate */"
 * 6)  "/* References */"
 * 7)  "/* References */"
 * 1)  "/* Name origin */"
 * 2)  "/* Name origin */"
 * 3)  "/* Geography and climate */"
 * 4)  "/* References */"
 * 5)  "/* References */"
 * 1)  "/* References */"
 * 2)  "/* References */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1185340441

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Enough warnings were given. The behavior of the user they were edit warring with needs looking at as well. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 14:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The behavior of the user they were edit warring with needs looking at as well. Why? I'm not the only person that was reverting: Panian513, Asparagusus, Dl2000, Materialscientist and Discospinster also reverted them over the course of a week (note that Paki STJj was also using IPs (154.81.244.193, 154.80.97.141)). Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * . Over a dozen reverts over the last three days or so, and not a single use of a talk page or user talk page. I don't think a timed block would solve anything, I think they need to show that they understand the reason they were blocked before editing. User:Lavalizard101 is blocked for 24 hours for making 7 reverts within the last 24 hours as well, as none of the content is an exception under WP:3RRNO. - Aoidh (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Tzsf reported by User:Treetoes023 (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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

I saw that someone (not Tzsf) had removed the longstanding definition of immortality used by the article without first discussing it on the talk page so I changed it back. After removing the undiscussed definition, Tzsf added it back into a section in which it did not belong, I reverted their edit and told them to take it to the talk page and wait for a consensus. They did not wait for a consensus and instead reverted my edit so I reverted their edit and this cycle has continued since. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked., you are warned that if in the future you edit-war, as you did here rather vigorously, you risk being blocked. I understand that Tzsf's edits were very disruptive, but I don't think your reverts qualify under WP:3RRNO.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:2800:E2:2480:21AF:2581:DB58:F24B:78C5 reported by User:Amaury (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Awards and nominations */That Thundermans did never won in 2015!!!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1185150977 by Jkudlick (talk) it did Lost!!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1185150580 by Jkudlick (talk) that did not won in 2015, it won Austin & Ally!!"
 * 4)  "/* Awards and nominations */The Fuckdermans did never won at KCA in Colombia, it did Lost, losers!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring with at least two other editors. Amaury • 19:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The IP(s) are edit-warring over a particular outcome of an award for this show, which hasn't been sourced for as long as I can remember, either what had been there as well as the IP edits changing them. Due to its being unsourced, and the IP(s) refusing to provide a source, I have removed the disputed award (and its outcome) from the table. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:JanetChenPastor reported by User:StAnselm (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Consensus was to exclude the controversies section. User is attempting to restore the section heading. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive353. User was also warned about contentious topics here. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Facially, there is no 3RR violation. However, restoring a section already removed by consensus, and having been advised of CTOPS (which, until I added one for AP2 to the talk page just now, the article itself had no indication of), Chen has forfeited that defense IMO). Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

User:2402:a00:401:7c3e reported by User:Beccaynr (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User(s) being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: (I found in a review of the edit history that I previously removed this during a general clean up of the article  23:52, 9 September 2023‎, before the previous page protection  07:45, 10 September 2023‎)

Diffs of the user's reverts: This report includes repeated attempts to add variations of 'Dwivedi said Hinduism was invented/constructed in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, to hide the caste discrimination' by both IP editors listed below.

2402:a00:401:7c3e:4d11:c044:1ad5:f1bc
 * 1)  09:17, 13 November 2023‎ "rv per User_talk:Beccaynr"
 * 2)  09:20, 13 November 2023‎ "The source clearly says "Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India." And also "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea".
 * 3)  09:49, 13 November 2023‎ "rv misleading revert"
 * 4)  10:16, 13 November 2023‎ "clearly supported by print.in source; don't WP:CENSOR the content"

2402:a00:401:7c3e:14ee:8832:d193:5dce
 * 1)  13:14, 16 November 2023‎ "avoid quoted material, rephrase with source"
 * 2)  14:41, 16 November 2023‎ "rv troll"
 * 3)  14:48, 16 November 2023‎ "if you know her so well then go get it rejected from her first"
 * 4)  15:34, 16 November 2023‎ "rv troll"
 * 5)  16:45, 16 November 2023‎ "yes, you failed in discussion"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2402:a00:401:7c3e:4d11:c044:1ad5:f1bc 09:21, 13 November 2023 2402:A00:401:7C3E:14EE:8832:D193:5DCE 16:56, 16 November 2023‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I had a follow-up discussion with about my previous request (filed at 09:43, 13 November 2023) for page protection at RFPP: at Lectonar's talk page. When I searched for the past report to add here, I found there is a pending request to protect the article at RFPP. Beccaynr (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also added a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But why hasn't been blocked? He made at least 6 reverts during that same period for removing perfectly sourced content by providing frivolous explanation of "WP:BLP" even after getting refuted on the talk page discussion days ago. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Because no one was asking for those blocks? Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I reviewed this earlier in the day, when this was the most recent edit. Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And 106.215.80.101 has also made 4 reverts for reverting same edit as Beccaynr. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At the time it was possible the article might also have been protected. Besides this report did not mention them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , I invited you to participate at the article talk page at 21:04, 15 November 2023 with the hope that we could discuss this complicated article. I have felt there are likely more careful and constructive approaches instead of your mass removals of content, , , and restoration of unsourced contentious content . I have opened a new section on the talk page today, and we can open more sections for various issues as needed.As to the three diffs of reverts I made on 13 November to remove what appears to be unsourced contentious content, I was careful to not exceed three reverts in 24 hours, even though I felt I had a BLP exception, and requested page protection. As to the two 16 November diffs, I reverted the removal of sourced content that was done without an adequate explanation along with the re-introduction of what appears to be unsourced contentious content, and then did this again after the rangeblock following this report so I could proceed with clean up and hopefully discuss this article further with editors on the article talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But why only 1 person should be punished when two more editors (106.215.80.101, Beccaynr) are guilty of WP:3RR violation? Can you at least modify your block of the IP to limit to the article per WP:BLOCK? His talk page contribution is essentially important given the ongoing content dispute. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When people make these reports we tend to concentrate on the editor reported, instead of going on fishing expeditions. Sometimes, yes, we block the reporting editor in addition or instead. I had no idea you had a dog in this fight since you didn't pop up in this discussion until after I blocked the IP.
 * But yes, I will change the block so it just applies to the article. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , I tried to provide a summary of my past involvement in the link above to Lectonar's talk page, which includes discussion of feedback after my 13 November request at RFPP. I think I also could have been more clear that the pending RFPP request I found while filing this report was filed by Aman.kumar.goel - I wasn't sure about how much detail to include, because this report focused on an IP range continuing to exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours, and based on my review of the article history, it appeared other editors had not done this.As an epilogue, the IP range editor has progressed from insults such as "obtuse" and "troll" (noted in edit summaries listed in this report), which were made before Aman.kumar.goel suggested their "contribution is essentially important" to the discussion, to unfounded accusations of paid editing and censorship . Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

User:JoeManchinStan reported by User:Zwiq (Result: Reporter blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * I've blocked Zwiq for one week for edit-warring and for WP:LOUTSOCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Uniru288 reported by User:Pedantic Aristotle (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Libertad_Avanza&diff=prev&oldid=1185868000 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1185861372

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1185861372
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1185832013
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1183364325

and one revert in a separate article, also after 3RR warning;
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Libertad_Avanza&diff=prev&oldid=1185868000
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Libertad_Avanza&diff=prev&oldid=1185832244
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=La_Libertad_Avanza&diff=prev&oldid=1183241534

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uniru288&diff=prev&oldid=1185865430

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Javier_Milei&diff=prev&oldid=1185865905

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uniru288&diff=prev&oldid=1185876832

Comments:

The user got banned 2 weeks ago for reverting the same content, and a few hours following the ban-lift resumed the reverting.

I'm filing this to ask for a recommendation for how to proceed. I don't want to keep reverting this users edits, at risk of being accused of edit waring myself. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:GothicGolem29 reported by User:JaggedHamster (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
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:

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

Comments:

JaggedHamster (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Panamitsu reported by User:Rei (Result: Fully protected)
Page:

'''User being reported: User:Panamitsu

Previous version reverted to: First version:

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Altman&diff=1186008005&oldid=1186003301 Original version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Altman&oldid=1186003301

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Reversion #1:  (Reverted: User:Rei)
 * 2) Reversion #2:  (Reverted: User:AgarwalYuvraj)
 * 3) Reversion #3:  (Reverted: User:Rei)
 * 4) Reversion #4:  (Reverted: User:Rei)
 * 5) Reversion #5:  (Reverted: User:Rei)

Note: While I have reverted as well, my first sets of reversions were to one version, which I then improved to add extra sources, followed by a limited number of further reversions to the improved version, thus AFAIK not in violation of the policy (but feel free to assess my edits as well). User:Panamitsu has furthermore reverted two separate users.

The user has reverted two separate versions of the text:


 * 1:


 * 2: (better sourced):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User had not taken part in talk, despite repeated requests to do so. I have repeatedly taken part on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Panamitsu&diff=prev&oldid=1186010206 [diff]

Comments:


 * I've full protected the article for the time being so this can be thoroughly discussed in the talk page. I'll leave any final decisions for another passing administrator, but this seems like a clear case of WP:BLP and, as such, the reverts by do not constitute a breach of the 3RR policy in my view. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 10:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that the allegations be removed before we reach consensus/final decision by an admin? — Panamitsu (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Missed that edit while was protecting the page. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 10:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While Panamitsu has reverted multiple times, they have specifically cited WP:BLP and, in this situation, this is a valid exemption to 3RR. Rei, on the other hand, has argued on the talk page that BLP requires this information to be included in the article, but the talk page would be the place to form consensus for this, which hasn't happened yet. Grayfell (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

User:140.213.127.32 reported by User:Gend07000 (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page:, , ,

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated vandalism, possibly the same person as ip 112.215.219.208 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/112.215.219.208

Gend07000 (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked 48h for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Dajasj reported by User:Uwappa (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (reverted own revert, with edit summary Stupid rule protecting nonsense)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Dajasj already responded to my previous attempt.

The subject of deletion and restoration is this bar chart with the latest election poll results:

Uwappa (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Consecutive edits count as a single revert for the purposes of WP:3RR, and Dajasj has made three reverts over the course of three days. Of the three participants in the latest talk page discussion, two argue for the removal of the chart. I would suggest following WP:BRD and using the talk page to try to obtain a consensus (using WP:DR if necessary) before trying to reinsert the chart. Moving forward it would also be beneficial to use edit sumaries so that it is explained in the edit summary why you are reverting an edit. Aoidh (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

User:SamuelLion1877 reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked for a week and logged at CTOPS)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rv page to how it was prior to disruptive editing + no further explanation or discussion has been made on the talk page by any of the users who have been relentlessly trying to cover up the massacres"
 * 2)  "Meant to revert to this version my bad, I will re add young doohickeys additions to this as well"
 * 1)  "Meant to revert to this version my bad, I will re add young doohickeys additions to this as well"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was blocked 48 hours for breaching 3RR at First Balkan War. Resumed edit-warring immediately after the block expired. No attempt at discussion in the talkpage since the block. I contacted blocking admin but they do not seem to be active at the moment. Khirurg (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * under ARBEE since this article is under that and user's talk page indicates they are aware. Appeal of the block will thus have to be through ArbCom. Block has been logged as CTOPS enforcement. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Vice regent reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Declined)
Page: Violation of 1RR restriction

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Rather than a 3RR warning this is a reference to the restrictions currently in place. Apologies if this is the wrong place but I didn't know where else to report.

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

Is this appropriate for an arbitration restriction?

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

Comments:

I do apologise if this is the wrong venue, the editor has reverted 3 edits of mine @ 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, which is under editing restrictions. From the talk page it is clear this isn't the first occasion, hence I have reported it on this occasion. WCM email 09:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Those diffs are all part of the same series of consecutive edits by Vice regent, which are considered a single revert. So this isn't a 1RR breach; decline.  (The edits may be otherwise problematic; I haven't looked further than that.)Reporting here is ok, but WP:AE is better. —Cryptic 09:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:X3N0M0RPHX reported by User:YannickFran (Result: sock is CU-blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) ; broken revert that was reverted again by bot.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

This concerns a user who has been previously reported here for the exact same changes but is now using a different account. These reverts are listed below:

As IP user User:67.84.203.109
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

As user User:CR1MS0NXV1P3R:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warnings were previously given on IP user and previous account.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This concerns a user who's IP and previous account have been banned, previously reported here (on November 9th, diff of the last change to that report: ), who is now engaging in the same edit war by reverting a number of different changes while refusing to discuss as well as introducing original research. While I understand that requests to go to the talk page of the article as well as warnings should be given before coming here, since this is clearly the same user as IP user and Crimson, I feel like that ship has sailed.--YannickFran (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @YannickFran Is there a ban in place? I see an indefinite block but no evidence of a community ban. —C.Fred (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I got my terminology confused. YannickFran (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we need with a sockpuppet investigation or ANI discussion. These tech articles seem to attract this kind of behavior every now and again (from various persons). —DIYeditor (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Back during the first report, I posted both here and on the sockpuppet board (because IP user and Crimson were pretending to be 2 different people, claiming to be "colleagues"). This board closed the problem and told me to go to the sockpuppet board, the sockpuppet board closed the request and send me here. So I'm frankly not sure anymore where to report this. Before I had the time to react both had been blocked, so I didn't bother going further with it at the time. Given it is just one account this time, I figured this was the best place. YannickFran (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * YannickFran, it's done. Please have a look at the user's page and the other socks, and the master, so that next time you can go straight to SPI if you like. Please note that the terminology you used was a bit vague and not entirely correct, as C.Fred pointed out. No IPs are ever banned, and the user was blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Bairagi Shab reported by User:Sumanuil (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I deleted Goswami, Gosain"
 * 2)  "Bairagi Brahmin"
 * 3)  "Bairagi Brahmin"
 * 4)  "Bairagi caste"
 * 1)  "Bairagi caste"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* November 2023 */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* November 2023 */"
 * 3)   "/* November 2023 */"
 * 4)   "/* November 2023 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Insists on removing "Goswami", even from the infobox file name.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 06:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:GeorgeJack reported by User:Cryptic (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Article was created three days ago; all content is new. (But he reverted again as I was writing this, so take the first set of diffs as this if you like.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) consecutive edits 07:08, 20 November 2023 and 07:18, 20 November 2023
 * 2) consecutive edits 11:23, 20 November 2023 (an explicit undo) and 11:32, 20 November 2023
 * 3) 12:51, 20 November 2023 (another explicit undo)
 * 4) consecutive edits 06:42, 21 November 2023 and 06:55, 21 November 2023
 * 5) 07:03, 21 November 2023 (another explicit undo (of me))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has 10k edits, has been here six years, and should know better regardless by now.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1186153474

Comments:

Saw diffs #4 after reverting related behavior on Portal:Current events/2023 November 18, and would have blocked myself if I'd seen the previous removals before rolling it back. —Cryptic 07:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment He is reverting constantly and saying things like "Idiocies need to be reverted" and "Some editors seem to be emotionally attached to the subject of the article and should be banned from editing here", clearly lacking presumed good faith. I've told him at different times times to use the talk page, without success. He has been reverted by three different people already and still want to remove content. This is unbelievable for someone that has been here for such a long time. Skyshifter  talk  11:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Also I have no idea what this means... Skyshifter   talk  12:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:2806:108E:13:60F3:5502:3F9D:C29D:6E0D reported by User:Yoshi24517 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1186240422 by Yoshi24517 (talk) Jesus christ it underperformed! What more do you want?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1186239244 by Trailblazer101 (talk) I'm not gonna give up it underperformed deal with it"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1186228218 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There are many many more reverts by the range reverting the same thing. If I were to include all the reverts by the range, it would be 8 reverts in 24 hours.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 21:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It was fine a month ago what's the difference now? 2806:108E:13:60F3:6892:4CDC:73C1:8A58 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's the diffs of more:, , , ,  Yoshi24517  ( Chat ) ( Online ) 21:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This appears to be a multi-IP editor given the editing history. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * for four days. Hopefully the discussion on the talk page can come to some agreement during that timeframe. - Aoidh (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Tongs454442 reported by User:McSly (Result: Indefinitely blocked, article semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1186339220 by McSly (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1186335324 by MaligneRange (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1186327686 by Zsohl (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1186327359 by Adakiko (talk)"
 * 5)  "Osteopathy is not pseudoscientific"
 * 6)  "Removing inferences of pseudoscientific which is erroneous and academically slanderous"
 * 1)  "Osteopathy is not pseudoscientific"
 * 2)  "Removing inferences of pseudoscientific which is erroneous and academically slanderous"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User deleting the discussions on their talk page

Comments:

The user deleted the warnings as well as the discussions trhying to resolve the issue fomr their talk page McSly (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Plus this report. No other edits.  Blocked indef. —Cryptic 13:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * (I was writing something about where to go if they returned as an anon or under another account, but another admin's already semiprotected the article. —Cryptic 14:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC))

User:Sergent Salt reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1186354946 by ZimZalaBim (talk) The reference in the NEJM is valid and corresponds to this study. There is a concerted attempt to silence this information."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1186354146 by ZimZalaBim (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1186345995 by Escape Orbit (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1181239566 by Dowiha (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1181239390 by Dowiha (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1181239390 by Dowiha (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Deleting sentences about radiation causing breast cancer */ cmt"

Comments:

SPA warned multiple times and pointed to discussion thread. Also warned there to discuss rather than edit war, but then reverted again. Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet another revert, presumably a 3RR violation. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 22:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

User:United States Man reported by User:WeatherWriter (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: On 2002 Veterans Day weekend tornado outbreak:
 * 1)  (Initial BOLD merge, not revert)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Noting more reverts occurred on 2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado amid copyright violation/content dispute.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Included that they were violated copyright rules, response (ignored copyright violation), 2nd reply from me, 2nd reply from them

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

Comments: Overall a content dispute, which could and should have been solved with a third opinion request, however, copyright violations are being ignored, hence bringing here (Noting in case of WP:BOOMERANG, I also violated 3RR while reverting the content dispute/copyright violation merging). First mention that this was a copyright violation (not attribution in edit summary) was at 05:52 on talk page as well as an edit summary revert at 05:53. The next revert by United States Man at 05:56 was with the edit summary of "rvt vandalism" and another revert exchange at 05:59 and 06:02 where, once again, copyright violation was called out and was ignored in the revert. User classified a copyright violation revert as vandalism amid the content dispute. On the talk page discussion, it was mentioned in both of my edits and were entirely ignored. Both myself and the other user reverted each other (today) 5 full back/forth exchanges. At the time of this ANI, the copyright violation merge has yet to be linked with attribution edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherWriter (talk • contribs) 06:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To me this seems like more baby-ish behavior with USM insisting he get his way and refusing to launch an AFD for there is a chance he loses. He did this before, with Tornado outbreak of April 19–20, 2020. The most appropriate course of action is clearly launch an AFD. 12.74.238.54 (talk) 12:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * USM for a week due to doing this on another article as well, and more recent (if shorter) block history; WW for 72 hours per WP:BOOMERANG. Being probably right in this circumstance does not come under 3RRNO as it does not seem the copyvio alone was the issue (and as WW admits). There is also no talk page discussion that might have prevented this coming here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think that an AFD for the article is warranted so that the conflict is truly resolved. I can’t start one due to being an IP editor but I implore you to create a nomination. 74.101.92.237 (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take it under advisement. It's almost dinnertime ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you decided yet? Chaser205 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I haven't been able to look into it yet ... what would the grounds be? Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)