Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive476

User:NelsonMandelaBarnes reported by User:Dcpoliticaljunkie (Result: Blocked from article for a week; subsequently indeffed as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lots of discussions on the talk page.

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

Comments:

First time doing this so not sure if I got it all right. Elissa Slotkin is covered under 1RR as a recent U.S. political figure. This editor seems to be a single purpose account expressly here to edit Slotkin's page and Cpotisch has observed that the user appears to be a new account for a previous editor who was banned for their edits to this article (they picked up precisely where that editor left off). Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not the first time they've edit warred on this page to add material that aligns with their POV in violation of ONUS without engaging productively on the talk page, fwiw. Just a couple days ago, they edit warred with another set of editors:   Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * from the article. Yes, the article is under CTOPS restrictions. However ... it is not at 1RR as AP is a topic area where that combination is not yet mandated; it's an option we can go to for an article if all else fails, but we're not there yet. Also, NMB had not yet been made aware of CTOPS until I posted appropriate notice on their talk page just now. Nevertherless, I blocked them because this edit warring does not require CTOPS awareness to justify a block. I have, however not logged the block so it can be appealed the normal way. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is unfair, firstly as you have stated the page only applies to 3RR instead of 1RR rule and I do comply with the 3RR rule., Secondly, I have explained why I registered at that day when that account is blocked. Thirdly, I comply with [WP:ONUS]] by always send message on talk page first before doing the corresponding edits, while User:Dcpoliticaljunkie always do edit warring first and explain on the talk page after doing that edit. Also, User:Dcpoliticaljunkie Obviously lacks the ability to edit wikipedia and is doing disruptive editing. Examples:
 * 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hill_Harper&diff=prev&oldid=1186520363 in this edit he deleted the whole section about hill harper rejecting 20M$ bribe, even though it has 6 differrent secondary sources fffrom reliable, notable sourcces.
 * 2:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Dog_Coalition&diff=prev&oldid=1186460852 in this edit he added"Most Blue Dogs are elected in competitive, Republican-leaning districts" while the soure only says "There are five women among the Blue Dogs, including four who won GOP districts in 2018." which can only show most of the women in blue dog coalition, not most of all the members in the blue dog coalition, is from competitive, Republican-leaning districts
 * 3,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elissa_Slotkin&diff=prev&oldid=1186459136 in this edit he claims "She moved back to her family farm in Holly outside the 7th congressional district in August 2023." while the source says "Slotkin, who is running for U.S. Senate, left Lansing after her lease on a condo there ended before the holidays and while she and husband Dave Moore were working out the terms of their divorce, spokesman Austin Cook said. The divorce was announced publicly in February." which means in fact she moved before February,but he just add this wrong information anyway.
 * 4,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elissa_Slotkin&diff=prev&oldid=1186458884 in this edit he fully deleted the fact that Slotkin advocated for a government program that Hollister's company benefited from, while one of the two sources clearly emphasized it. "Slotkin also advocated for a government program that her landlord's company benefited from. That's made Slotkin's residency in Lansing a topic of debate in her hotly contested race for a third term against Republican state Sen. Tom Barrett of Charlotte, which is among the most competitive U.S. House contests nationally."
 * based on all these I should not be blocked because I cleaned up "User:Dcpoliticaljunkie"'s vandalizing, insteah, he should be blocked for those vandalizing. NelsonMandelaBarnes (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will address only your conduct, not the content issues you created a wall o' text above documenting, since in this context it's not relevant. The fact that 1RR isn't in effect doesn't give you safe harbor through your compliance with 3RR, since as WP:EW states quite explicitly, 3RR does not need to be violated for edit warring to be blockable.
 * I also see from your post the imperfect English other editors have noted. While it's pretty good for an obvious non-native speaker, maybe that's part of your problem? Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Indo12122 reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is not a dispute involving me but they did open a talk page discussion, but still violated 3RR, even after being warned by reverting the page again. They did also removed sourced content I added though here. Diff of me adding it: Diff of them removing it:

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

Comments:

This user (Indo12122) has constantly reverted Johnbod's revisions, and then mine after being warned, going against the consensus of two editors and refusing to go onto the talk page despite being informed by Johnbod in previous revisions until my threat of an ANI. They have failed to follow WP:ONUS by trying to back up their content and entered an edit war. Noorullah (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging @Johnbod since he is also involved. Noorullah (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indo12122 has also made "uncivil" comments in their edit summaries such as here "You guys have hijacked at this point. stop." As well as blatantly accusing other editors of vandalism in this revision:  While @Johnbod has also informed them to take it to the talk page, as it falls on them in these revisions:   Noorullah (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Indo12122 took it to talk page as well. I have also noticed the result section of the military box contradicted and wasn't in accordance to the article page's informations itself for example instead of showing the decline of the Muslim Rule it instead showed the opposite without any citation. Jonharojjashi (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding. Many many people requested me to bring changes to the page because of it's inaccuracy. Indo12122 (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made changes to their revisions. Firstly their military box has no proper citations. Which goes against the terms and policies of Wikipedia. Secondly they dont cover the full incident and only show half hisitorical events, They dont let post anyone the aftermath. Their military box has grammatical errors which much be fixed. They are going the consensus of two editors, Me and @User:Jonharojjashi|Jonharojjashi. We both provided proper citations with contemporary sources to their incomplete page which was lacking in citations. Infact we tried our best to make the page better. And Pardon me but I think wikipedia is made by people Like us, who try their best to make wikipedia a better place for learning, But if such wikipedia starts having incomplete and citationless pages wwith grammatical errors. Shouldn't it be changed? And as for talk page. I did brought the topic in the talk page the moment Noorullah Has said to do so. Indo12122 (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You only brought it to the talk page when I warned you that otherwise it would be taken to ANI. You were still informed by Johnbod to do so multiple times, and when you did go to the talk page, you still reverted it back to your revision. What you're doing is also against WP:MILMOS with cluttering the infobox. Noorullah (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But the infobox lacks basic grammar as well as basic citations. Which goes against the terms and policy of WP:CITENEED
 * Secondly, IT doesnt even covers the aftermath. Indo12122 (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox is not meant to reflect the aftermath of a conflict, nor was it lacking basic citations. As per Milmos#INFOBOX, the infobox should not be cluttered with content, including un-needed citations. Noorullah (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but If you are creating an article namely "Muslim conquests in the indian subcontinent" and even including Sikhs in it and even rulers like ranjit siingh (Who literally ended the durranis and mughals) then dont u think writing "Gradual establishment of muslim rule" is unfair? You even included Maratha empire. If u would include few rajput kingdoms and ghurids or ghahznavids then it would be fair, but mughals? Sikhs? Under them the muslim rule had ended. Yet u just wrote "Establishment of muslim rule" so this iisnt fair at all? U included all hindus and sikhs, which includes sikh empire and maratha empire, yet only "establishment of muslim rule"? Its wrong. Reconquest should be written too. And u even wrote "European dominance had followed by muslim rule" which is wrong again. Much of the Indian subcontinent was dominated By Hiindu/Sikhs except for mysore kingdom. And kingdom of mysore wasnt even islamic. Only the last 2 rulers were muslims. Now. As per Milmos3INFOBOX, only obvious infos dont require citations, But you are making big statements such as "Establisshment of muslim rule followed by european colonization", this isnt obvious because hindu recoonquests took place. U definetly need to put citations with proper sources. Indo12122 (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox before was not in accordance with the Wikipedia article page's informations itself. Contradicting the result section of the military box such as "Decline of the Muslim Rule" shows that it only contradicts the article page's information itself but it was also conclusive claims without citations. Least to say that there are also other Wikipedia pages that agrees with the result and "Decline of the Muslim Rule" section such as Afghan-Sikh Wars, Capture of Delhi (1771), Ahom-Mughal conflicts, Rajput War (1679–1707) and Rajput Rebellion (1708-1710). Jonharojjashi (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And again, opinions of 2 people isn't consensus. By the same logic if we go so, then they were going against the consensus of me and @Jonharojjashi
 * No one was having problem except those 2 (noorullah and john). And just like the page isn't ours, its not theirs either. Its our duty to add citations and correct the pages Indo12122 (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And now another user has reverted your revisions. @Sutyarashi Noorullah (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And now another user has reverted Back my revisions. Mr Anonymous 699 Indo12122 (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for miss quoting the link.
 * Another user has reverted back my revision @Mr Anonymous 699 42 Indo12122 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * To be clear, all my reversions have been back to the long-established version, plus a couple of minor tweaks. Indo12122 has some reasonable points to make, which he should pursue on talk, as he has now started to do, but his changes to the infobox are inappropriate in all sorts of ways. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The account is less than a week old and has largely edited this article (already designated as being within a contentious topic, unsurprisingly) disruptively. I feel comfortable concluding that that's the only reason they're here. It's a regular admin action, so if the user wishes to appeal they don't have to go to ArbCom. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Wikimaster2345678 reported by User:Wizmut (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
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: | Warned of vandalism| Told edits were unconstructive| Told about 3 revert rule

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Disputes what should be in the list, what sources can be used and even which sources exist. Did eventually use talk page, but called other editors "ignorant" and "delusional". Spams the same comment multiple times.
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Gil mo reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Article has 1RR restrictions due to WP:ARBPIA4 general sanctions. I could report this at WP:AE, however this is a less extreme option for a newer user. TarnishedPathtalk 07:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this qualifies, though I deliberately stay as far away from WP:AE as I can manage: there's no edit notice on the page or template on the talk page as per WP:CTOP in general and Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles through #Available sanctions in particular, Gil mo's never been given an alert/first, and your 1RR warning came after both the diffs above. Not inclined to do more than warn (and revert their edit as a technical breach, if it's still in place - I haven't checked). —Cryptic 08:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cryptic, when you click edit there's a notice at the top of the page "07:40, 10 October 2023 Ymblanter talk contribs protected List of terrorist incidents in 2023 [Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 07:40, 10 January 2024) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 07:40, 10 January 2024) (Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA, only for three months because not the whole article is about Israel)". There's also a thread at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in 2023 which was left by an admin advising of pretty much the same. TarnishedPathtalk 09:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * However, whatever your judgement is obviously. TarnishedPathtalk 09:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ps, I've put the appropriate notice on the talk page for future reference. I presume an editor will take it off at such time that the EC protection and contentious topic restriction is removed. TarnishedPathtalk 09:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of those mention the 1RR restriction or our general intolerance of disruption in this area. (At least, not unless you click through and read a great deal of text pretty thoroughly.)  Leaving this for a second opinion from another admin, in any case. —Cryptic 09:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion is beyond ridiculous. User:TarnishedPath is the disruptive editor here. Using a completely obtuse and almost completely non-intelligible forum like this one which is almost exclusively inhabited by endless abbreviations to further his disrespect of an editor who is just trying to keep a terrorist attack that happened in 2023 included in the . TarnishedPath started this so-called edit war. Instead of politely saying "Lets discuss this on the Talk page" he immediately intimidated by bringing the discussion directly here. I would like to nominate TarnishedPath to be censured for his disruptive editing and starting a completely unnecessary discussion on this noticeboard, thus wasting our time and intimidating editors.DaringDonna (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1RR notices were only posted on the talk and edit pages after all this. Gil mo has not been given the first-time CTOPS alert (which I will be taking care of after this). Donna, please slow your roll. Everybody now has a chance to do things the right way. A chance. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. My intent is of course not to get into edit wars. Nor am I knowledgeable regarding the various RRs, so sorry if I was violating anything. Please advise on how I should go on from now, convincing Wikipedia that the Oct 7th events in Israel are considered terror attacks. My edits have been reverted again by the user TarnishedPath. Thanks! Gil_mo (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gil mo, discuss in the article talk page. TarnishedPathtalk 00:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

User:120.29.86.15 reported by User:CD967119 (Result: Range blocked from article for six months)
Page:

User being reported: and their what seems like sockpuppet IP

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Context: user was warned but continued disruptive editing

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:  Comments: It seems like the user keeps changing IP addresses, and along with them using broken english. I am also unsure is it technically reverts, or even reverting, but it IS EDIT WARRING


 * , from the article. This applies to Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Accura9 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1187181048 by Schazjmd (talk) User reversed the correction of a typo and falsely claimed that an edit is not supported by the source - very easy to check."
 * 2)  "/* Unreliable narrator */ Deleted 2 statements that were not supported by the sources provided (BBC and Irish Times). Added relevant detail that had been deleted previously."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1187112931 by Siriaeve (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1187102356 by Siriaeve (talk) User siriave, please refrain from making threats. We are all volunteering to make Wikipedia better. You have repeatedly deleted well-sourced information contributed by others. Your fixation with forcing your negative POV on this page is obvious. You can easily add the negative information you are focused on without deleting the well-sourced information contributed by others."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1186644679 by Siriaeve (talk) User deleted relevant content that was thoroughly sourced."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1186644313 by Siriaeve (talk) Undoing deletion of appropriate and properly sourced material."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1186644313 by Siriaeve (talk) Undoing deletion of appropriate and properly sourced material."

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

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

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Truong Gia Bao112 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 24h)
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:

Many warnings on their talk page. They've also just come back from a block for the same offenses. Simply "not here"....not willing to engage with the community. Moxy - 02:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What previous block? It wasn't with this account.  (Blocked 24h in the meantime.) —Cryptic 02:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Fangz reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: User repeatedly removing content based on interpretation of historical primary source in non-English language (Classical Chinese). When it became clear that the primary source did not obviously contradict the removed content, user persisted in reverting. Qiushufang (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "previous version reverted to" is the link you meant to post; it's simply the revision before Fangz's first diff. Or if it was what you meant, this isn't a bright-line violation - it's an initial removal of a disputed paragraph (not a revert) followed by three reverts. —Cryptic 02:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Removal of incorrect content is not a revert. It is just an edit. The version listed as "previous version reverted to" is in fact the version the reporting user keeps reverting to themselves! Above user is unreasonably edit warring - they asked for a source and translation, and then when this was provided, kept reverting anyway. The "primary source" clearly contradicts the removed content. (Not that the source is actually the primary source, it's a secondary source book written in the 15th century, the editor just prefers a tertiary source instead). Anyway reporting user has multiple clear misapprehensions about the material that is also pointed out by other users. -Fangz (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is a letter written at the time of the event, is it not? That constitutes a primary source, which is subject to WP:PRIMARY. I maintain that the translated passage provided does not provide a clear contradiction of the deleted content. It is not clear that Li Zangyong is Korean. Heuk Chuk, which appears to be the Korean name here rather than Mongol or Chinese, was the receiver. Anyways, if this does not count as a 3RR violation, then this report is bunk and nothing should be done. Qiushufang (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Both editors made their three reverts and have taken it to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

User:YMVD reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Indeffed as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 12 November 2023 (YMVD added "dictator, marxist" to opening sentence)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  14:29, 27 November 2023 (reverted to restore "dictator" to opening sentence)
 * 2)  03:48, 28 November 2023 (reverted to restore "dictator, marxist" to opening sentence)
 * 3)  04:25, 28 November 2023 (reverted to restore "dictator" to opening sentence with edit summary "Added a sweet word for them")

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: YMVD is only at 3RR at this point but they have manifestly thumbed their nose at the consensus-building process. See the details linked in my personalized warning on their talk page as well as their final edit summary quoted above. Instead of engaging with the thread I started on the article talk page, they instead simply reverted again and then continued making unsourced changes to other articles.

Here they are continuing to edit war over unsourced changes to another article (after being warned here about making unsourced changes of this kind):

Note also that Moneytrees was kind enough to inquire about their odd request to be indef blocked on my user talk page the other day.

It's also very likely that YMVD is socking as, since that account also reverted to restore "dictator" to the opening sentence at Fidel Castro with the same idiosyncratic edit summary ("Added data") as YMVD often uses:. Compare with e.g.. Generalrelative (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm, the more I look into it, the more the socking seems to be an open-and-shut case. Compare e.g. the user pages of and . If the patrolling admin would rather I take this to SPI I would be happy to do so, though the backlog there is rather long. Generalrelative (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * DUCK indeed but it looks like Jpgordon beat me to the block  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Both blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 05:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much to you both! Generalrelative (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Agathiyar654 reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Jailer film's Box Office was confirmed as ₹607 crore by many reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES. But, some unreliable sources reported it was ((INR}}650–655 crores. Later in October 2023, Sources confirmed that Leo surpassed Jailer with a collection of ₹615 crores. Later, it was made consensus among editors to keep the Jailer gross has ₹607 crores per sources.
 * Recently an IP (2600:1700:130:950:9202:36FA:CE81:9E17) referenced the unreliable source on edit request made at Talk:List of highest-grossing Tamil films. Based on that, User:Agathiyar654 has been changing the wrong BO values on pages continuously leading to Edit Warring.
 * I left a message on the talk page (rev. 1187297277); But, the user made no replies and continued to do the same thing. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 6th revert: 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * due to the extra reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Outsellers reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Partial blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Financial Post is not listed as a reliable source on wikipedia's list"
 * 2)  "not sourced properly"
 * 3)  "Cannot use yahoo news/financial post as a reliable source for highly controversial topic"
 * 4)  "It's using yahoo finance, which is the exact source that is being used in the lede."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Alex Epstein (American writer)
 * 2) Talk:Alex Epstein (American writer)
 * 3) Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Comments:

Outsellers was blocked in November 2022 for edit warring at this same article. They have been a single-purpose account, with nearly all of their edits related to Epstein.

Before the above 3RR violation, Outsellers had also reverted 7 times in the past 4 days, including another 3RR violation on the 25th. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) two consecutive edits at 22:12 and 22:13, 24 November: removing climate change denial from the lead
 * 2) 17:13, 25 November: re-do of #1
 * 3) 17:32, 25 November: re-do of #1
 * 4) two consecutive edits at 18:16 and 18:17, 25 Novemeber: partial re-do of #1
 * 5) As an IP – 00:48, 27 November]: re-do of #1
 * 6) As an IP – 14:42, 27 November re-do of #1
 * 7) As an IP – two consecutive edits at 16:06, 27 November: re-do of #1


 * Talk page discussion with Outsellers is almost impossible - they justify their edits by referencing talk page comments of others that explicitly do not support their actions. They also refer to rules and policies that do not appear to exist anywhere. I don't see any signs that this user will stop acting disruptively of their own accord. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Partial blocked from the article, indefinitely. I have tried to ask them about COI issues on the talk page, but they refuse to answer, so this is the obvious forward path. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also put a CTOPS notice on the article talk page. It's apparent this sort of thing has a high likelihood of recurring. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Pecinta Matematika reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Blocked 24 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:
 * Level-1 warnings were left on User talk:Pecinta Matematika about deleting text without an edit summary, about mistakes that violated MOS:CAPS, & about how to leave an edit summary & how to use preview. A Level-2 warning was left after the editor's first reversion. The editor did not respond to these warnings.

Comments:


 * Many warnings on Pecinta Matematika's talk page with no response to any of them. Pecinta Matematika also has never left an edit summary on Seven Years' War.
 * – bradv  21:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Asmodim reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "revert: It uses both arabic or latin script depending on the user"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1187383604 by Skitash (talk) There's litteraly a whole part about scripts in the page beyond the obvious use of arabizi"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1187479886 by Skitash (talk) I can use all the sources in the page latin script, just refer to them then"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1187530252 by Skitash (talk) it does, you are of extremely bad faith, normally that wouldn't even require a source as it is obvious to any user of the language, in written form the latin arabizi form dominates, sources also mention this form so the least would be to mention it but that wouldn't go well with your arab everywhere 99% arabic muslim pov does it ?"

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: Apart from the edit warring and POV-pushing, this user has persistently made personal attacks and casted aspersions on me (i.e. claiming that I have a political agenda), just because I reverted them for adding unsourced content. Skitash (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * – bradv  21:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The content I added was sourced and Skitash is removing any content pertaining to berber elements or anything that says the country isn't 99% musltim/arab, he constantly pushes for a biased pov based on a a ethnically supremacist agenda Asmodim (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view on Wikipedia and strive to adhere to its policies. In this case, my intention was to ensure that the information presented accurately reflects the diversity of perspectives and historical facts regarding Tunisian heritage.
 * The user in question has been systematically removing sourced content that acknowledges the non-Arabic aspects of Tunisian ethnicity and language, as well as information about Berber ancestry. This raises concerns about the impartiality and accuracy of the content being presented on Wikipedia. Asmodim (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note to Administrators: This user is continuing to edit war in Talk:Tunisian Arabic despite having been blocked for this just over 24 hours ago. They persist in indiscriminately copying and pasting an irrelevant section of text from Talk:Tunisians, a contribution made through a sockpuppet account of theirs, into the talk page of Tunisian Arabic, where it clearly does not belong. Skitash (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Pachu0168 reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Do you believe only from the Cambodian side but not from the Thai side? We would like to confirm that there is insufficient evidence to confirm that Muay Thai has its origins in the Khmer Bokator, which is claimed from a temple wall. One of the more famous claims from temple wall is a martial art from India called that "Kalaripayattu" as Bokator Even though it's actually not."
 * 2)  "To protect the art of Muay Thai that has existed for a long time. I have to correct the information every time. To prevent Cambodia from trying to claim Muay Thai and not having enough evidence to claim."
 * 3)  "I try protect the art of Muay Thai that has existed for a long time. I have to correct the information every time. To prevent Cambodia from trying to claim Muay Thai and not having enough evidence to claim."
 * 4)  "It is claimed without any evidence that Muay Thai came from Cambodia. That evidence is not enough and only from the Cambodia side which is false."
 * 1)  "It is claimed without any evidence that Muay Thai came from Cambodia. That evidence is not enough and only from the Cambodia side which is false."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly removed sourced content from the article despite multiple users reverting them. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze&#95;&#95;wolf 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't care about being banned, what I want is to demand justice and fairness for "Muay Thai History", not that Cambodian will suddenly claim the right to make a claim. and using insufficient evidence like this. Pachu0168 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you mind taking a look at ? Was hoping to avoid the rigmarole of an SPI as it seems to be an obvious WP:Quack case based on them resuming this edit war. — Czello (music) 07:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's quacking enough for me. Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Pecinta Matematika reported by User:Ivanvector (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diffs from prior report leading to 24h block


 * 1) Post-block diffs:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Warned
 * 2) warned more strongly
 * 3) blocked 24h
 * 4) previous discussion still visible on this page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Seven Years' War/Archive 1

Comments:

User was blocked 2 days ago for edit warring on this article and failing to explain or discuss their edits. Barely 12 hours after the block expired they came back and made the same edits again. They still have not responded to messages on their talk page, nor used an edit summary nor edited a talk page ever. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * – bradv  15:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Venkatphd reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Both parblocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1187775620 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1187774858 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1187774522 by Krimuk2.0 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Adding spam links on Animal (2023 film)."
 * 2)   "/* December 2023 */"
 * 3)   "/* December 2023 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated addition of "review" without a source, and reverting without explanation. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Diff #4 above (the first chronologically) may or may not be spam, like you reverted it for - and the reposting of the link here, and the retaliatory report predispose me to think you're right despite not having yet looked at the link - but it's not a revert, and it's not unsourced. —Cryptic 11:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's Eenadu's website, so unless that's well-known to be some sort of horrifically unreliable tabloid that's managed never to be discussed on WP:RSN, it's not blockable spam. This is edit warring on both your parts, if not quite a bright-line 3rr violation.  Take it to the article's talk page, both of you. —Cryptic 11:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. With your three reverts of Venkatphd,    plus this and this, you're well over 3rr yourself.  None of the reverts look to be exempt.  I'm willing to listen to why you shouldn't be blocked. —Cryptic 11:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because as someone with a decade of experience of working on film-related articles, I'm following the sources that are considered reliable under WP:ICTFSOURCES. Also, the "Telugu" source of Eenadu cited is not in English -- how do you know it's been translated correctly? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't. I don't know that it's not, either.  Are you claiming it isn't?  It's not an excuse either way.  Source unreliability is only exempt from edit warring if it's on a BLP, or so plainly egregious as to be obvious vandalism or spam.  What is so urgent about these edits that you need to revert them right away?  (I do acknowledge it's a heavily-edited article about a film that was released today.) —Cryptic 12:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's literally what maintaining the quality of an article looks like. Per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:CONSENSUS, the onus is on them to prove the reliability of their source and translation, when they have been reverted (which I did thrice, not four times, so it's not a 3rr violation either way; unlike theirs which was 4 times). Villianizing someone whose aim is to help Wiki articles on Hindi cinema maintain some sort of credibility isn't helpful. Plus, dredging up this revert of Bollywood Bubble which is explicitly listed as an unreliable source by WP:ICTFSOURCES is particularly disheartening. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * from the page Animal (2023 film). – bradv  15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Cammurray0420 reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: Parblocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Initial addition of material

07:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) User adjusted wording before start of edit war.

(Addition of "Boostback burn aborted at 00:03:18 due to engine failures and the vehicle was destroyed by AFTS at 00:03:21" or similar)

(Addition of "Burn aborted and vehicle terminated by AFTS at 00:08:05 due to propellent leaks causing vehicle to deplete fuel and oxidizer faster than expected" or similar)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1185984850...
 * 2) 18:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1186057121...
 * 3) 00:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Re-added material
 * 4) 06:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1186285062...
 * 5) 19:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Removed citation needed tags on material
 * 6) 17:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1187040563...
 * 7) 17:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1186909934...
 * 8) 21:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1187532695...
 * 9) 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1187541030...
 * 10) 00:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Undid revision 1187653489...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 07:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

This report's focus is the slow edit war. While the reverts of multiple users occur over a period longer than 24 hours, this user has indicated they will not stop edit warring and outright rejected two attempts to resolve the dispute in discussion. In response to another user's attempt to open a discussion on their user talk page, Cammurray0420 responded, "How about... No." When I tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, Cammurray0420 responded, "no." Redraiderengineer (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * from SpaceX Starship second integrated flight test, for intention to edit war while refusing to discuss (e.g. 1, 2) – bradv  15:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Gonjabear reported by User:Rusty4321 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: rev. 1183695872

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1187955043]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1187955944]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1187960116]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1187960893]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1187962523]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1187957897/1187962343

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1187964559

Comments:

Persistently removes three paragraphs at end of history section. When asked to stop, responds with something about how it is not accurate information. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gonjabear&diff=prev&oldid=1187962937],[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gonjabear&diff=prev&oldid=1187963138],, also in his reverts) Rusty4321 talk contribs 16:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * When I tried to discuss with said user about original research, he personally attacked me [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGonjabear&diff=1187966762&oldid=1187965079].


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Beccaynr reported by User:Aman.kumar.goel (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1187964370 by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) per WP:BLPUNDEL, rm poorly-sourced contentious content, being discussed at BLPN"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Dympies (talk): Rm per WP:BLPUNDEL, being discussed at BLPN"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Aman.kumar.goel (talk): Per WP:UNDEL, and pending discussion at BLPN; this appears to misrepresent the article subject; appears to misuse sources; appears to be editor-selected OR, and be contrary to NPOV and BLP policies"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by Aman.kumar.goel (talk): Per WP:UNDEL, consensus needed; this is being discussed at BLPN"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by Aman.kumar.goel (talk): Rm per WP:BLPUNDEL, being discussed at BLPN, out-of-context and misattributed, editor-selected OR"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring by using blatant misleading edit summaries. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Beccaynr

 * I corrected my edit summary at 15:57, 1 December 2023 "dummy edit to correct edit summary - WP:BLPUNDEL, not WP:UNDEL, as discussed at BLPN and previous edit summary"
 * There is a pending discussion at BLPN that I referred to in my recent message to Aman Kumar Goel, and my previous message at 15:52, 1 December 2023 . I have previously asked Aman Kumar Goel to discuss at 06:50, 28 November 2023‎ and [21:04, 15 November 2023‎]


 * Aman Kumar Goel has added disputed content over good-faith BLP objections, including during pending discussion at BLPN:
 * 10:06, 13 November 2023‎ "simplify language" (restored disputed content)
 * 13:28, 1 December 2023‎ "nothing wrong with this"
 * 15:42, 1 December 2023‎ "No its fine"
 * 15:49, 1 December 2023‎ "That discussion is already stale" (Aman.kumar.goel had commented in 'that discussion' (BLPN) about this disputed content at 13:25, 1 December 2023‎, 13:27, 1 December 2023‎ )
 * 15:57, 2 December 2023 "Can't edit war everyone"


 * Some of this has overlapped with an IP range that was previously blocked for edit-warring from the article:
 * User:2402:a00:401:7c3e reported by User:Beccaynr (Result: /64 blocked for a week) filed 17:53, 16 November 2023

Beccaynr (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My edits on 10:06, 13 November 2023‎ and 13:28, 1 December 2023‎ are not reverts. You have made at least 10 more reverts, apart from what I have cited in the report, for removing perfectly sourced content by providing frivolous explanation of "WP:BLP" even after getting refuted on the talk page discussion. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not feel that Ad hominem from you and the IP range that was blocked from the article for a week is a refutation of WP:BLPUNDEL noted in the article talk discussion.
 * ====2402:A00:401:7C3E range====
 * Edit summary:
 * 10:16, 13 November 2023‎ "clearly supported by print.in source; don't WP:CENSOR the content"
 * On the article talk page: Talk:Divya Dwivedi
 * 15:59, 13 November 2023 "...Read WP:DEADHORSE."
 * 17:16, 17 November 2023 "... Why don't you simply tell how much are you getting paid to censor the information? ..."
 * 17:58, 17 November 2023 "See WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
 * 07:52, 28 November 2023 "Your wikilawyering is getting more disruptive."
 * ====Aman.kumar.goel====
 * At BLPN: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
 * 15:52, 1 December 2023 "...Now instead of filibustering, you need to drop the WP:STICK"
 * 16:38, 1 December 2023 "...See WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
 * 17:28, 1 December 2023 "...But here you are simply out to WP:CENSOR the quote anyhow with this absurd WP:WIKILAWYERING which is not gonna work."
 * 17:50, 1 December 2023 "...Why you are censoring the statement?"
 * 18:27, 1 December 2023 "... Your entire dispute is based on nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT."
 * 08:54, 2 December 2023 "See WP:FILIBUSTER." (this is after the non-RS portion of The Print has been discussed)
 * And the attempts to use the unreliable portion of The Print, now that this has been established in the BLPN discussion, also does not appear to be a refutation:
 * ====2402:A00:401:7C3E range====
 * 09:20, 13 November 2023‎ edit summary "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."..." - this is the the subheadline of The Print source (the subheadline is not a reliable source, according to the RS guideline)
 * 15:59, 13 November 2023 - on the article talk page, cites and quotes the subheadline of The Print ("Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India.")
 * 07:50, 28 November 2023 - opening comment at BLPN includes citing/quoting the subheadline from The Print
 * ====Aman.kumar.goel====
 * 04:37, 20 November 2023, in the article, adds the non-RS portion of The Print source (the subheadline) to the quote portion of the citation.
 * Beccaynr (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 106.215.80.101 had made 4 reverts for reverting same edit as you.
 * So did 122.177.99.176 by falsely claiming (just like you) that "This addition of content is not suitable BLP."
 * No way your account was alone with adding heat to this unnecessary. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * At BLPN, it was noted at 08:13, 28 November 2023 by  "Also as a reminder in BLP cases, WP:BLPUNDEL says that removals on good faith BLP grounds can only be readded if there is consensus. It doesn't matter how long the text has been stable." Nil Einne also added this reminder at the article talk discussion at 08:17, 28 November 2023 .From my view, the BLP, NPOV, OR, and source-related objections have been significant, and the IP range, yourself, and now another editor have been repeatedly adding disputed contentious content to this CTOPs BLP, while discussion has been pending and most recently, after the discussion had seemed to have finally made progress in resolving one of the issues related to the disputed content, i.e. the use of and/or reliance on an unreliable portion of ThePrint source. Beccaynr (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Beccaynr (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Beccaynr (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have notified about reporting their recent conduct at the article here ; they have also recently participated in the BLPN discussion, and twice restored, , disputed contentious content over good-faith BLP objections, including after a warning on their talk page.
 * See also: Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel
 * And the SPI has already failed.
 * This gross misconduct from you deserves WP:BOOMERANG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No action Apart from the fact that this filing sounds like forum-shopping as the issue is already at WP:BLPN, I am very reluctant to take action where there is a credible claim of BLP and where the filer has reverted four times in just over 24 hours to re-instate that material. Take it to WP:ANI if you believe there is a genuine conduct issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Abazizfahad reported by User:Veggies (Result: Two warring editors blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: User declines to discuss the issue on the article talk page despite repeated requests. -- Veggies (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you reported only and not . Both (experienced) editors have violated 1RR on a page that is subject to a 1RR restriction.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge committing the violation out of frustration also at the other party's failure to engage in the article talk page and have since contacted the other party in their talk page. I accept sanctions that may be placed with regards to this. Borgenland (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (Not the reporting editor) However, while they are both aware of CTOPS and ARBPIA in particular, I am not going to log this as a CTOPS action because of insufficient notice: the edit page lacked the usual edit notice stating that 1RR applies very clearly, an omission I have since rectified. So, it will be a normal administrative action and may be appealed to (and lifted by) any admin. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

User:QuestFour reported by User:Theknine2 (Result: Both users blocked from page for three months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Honey (Mariah Carey song)
 * 2) Dispute resolution noticeboard

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

Comments:

User:QuestFour has been consistently reverting changes on, constantly uploading the UK version of single cover, despite lengthy discussion in Talk:Honey (Mariah Carey song) about why the US/international single cover should be used instead. This user refuses to understand many valid rationale given by me and another user, instead choosing to rely on a few reasons that don't hold water. This user also has a long and repeated history of inciting edit wars, including uploading incorrect album/single covers, as clearly evident in User talk:QuestFour, so I recommend a stronger punishment for this user, so as to not waste the time of any more users. Theknine2 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * from the page. Despite the evidence on the talk page this is all I feel justified in doing right now based on this report. I am not sure (I hope) that this block will foreclose on the possibility of overwriting the image; I have never done this in file namespace before. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * the block log states "continually reuploading version of file without consensus, during discussion"; per WP:EDITCON, the last version of the file that I uploaded prior to the edit warring in October already had presumed consensus during the 2+ years it was used, thus the onus of achieving a new consensus should lie upon Theknine2, making them the one reverting without consensus during discussion. I'm not contesting my block if you see that it's warranted, but per the former, I believe that it's only just for Theknine2 to be subjected to a similar treatment. Alternatively, the file page itself could be fully protected instead. QuestFour (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked them from the page for three months as well. I consider this better than full protection since other editors might want to edit the page in the meantime. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Disappointed in this decision since this edit war was incited by QuestFour, who was unwilling to accept the many listed valid rationales during discussion (by me and a third user), and perpetuated this edit war. This decision also still enables QuestFour to continue starting edit wars on other pages, wasting the time of other editors; this whole situation has been unproductive and time consuming for me. I trust that another editor will upload the correct version of the single artwork on my behalf. Theknine2 (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional note: A fourth user has contributed their opinion on the talk page, and there is now a talk page consensus to use the US/international cover that I proposed. I hope you reconsider the decision to block me from the page, and to also impose a more serious punishment on QuestFour. Thank you. Theknine2 (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit warring, outside of a few clearly-outlined exceptions, is indifferent to who's right or who started it. You didn't have to keep reverting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

User:2001:8A0:6A16:8301:9061:C991:6FA1:F594 reported by User:MaeseLeon (Result: Rangeblocked)
Page:

User being reported: and his other anonymous IPs (2001:8A0:6A16:8301:B8C0:BEBC:DE36:4879, 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:8D3D:D6FF:5A64:C61D, etc.)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ? (First time doing this in over 18 years, I'm not sure.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not feasible because it's a constantly changing IP. However, I (and other users) included our reasons to revert in the appropriate field in every case.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: ? (Again, first time doing this, I'm not sure.)

Comments:

As suggested by User:BusterD, I must bring attention to the activities of the anonymous IP address 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:9061:C991:6FA1:F594, previously 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:B8C0:BEBC:DE36:4879, and now 2001:8A0:6A16:8301:8D3D:D6FF:5A64:C61D, and God knows how many more. This anonymous is engaging in persistent disruptive editing across multiple Wikipedia articles, particularly those related to European left-wing parties and personalities in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:EW. Their actions, which include the use of Spanish-language unreliable sources and alt-right fake news, as well as engaging in edit wars upon being reverted, have already necessitated the protection of the Spanish Sumar (electoral platform) article for 3 days on November 26, 2023 (see: ). S/he's doing the same with Yolanda Díaz (a Sumar minister in the Spanish government) and getting ready to do so in Portuguese Communist Party and possibly Communist Party of Greece.

Additionally, s/he's now gone aggressive and is harassing and lying about me by saying that I am a "Sumar far-left activist" and a "Russian tankie" (!) in complete violation of WP:BNBR in both my request to protect the attacked pages (, look for "Sumar") and my own talk page. So I respectfully request protection for the mentioned pages and myself, and/or instructions on how to stop the harassing from these anonymous IPs. Thank you in advance! MaeseLeon (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * for personal attacks - this is a /64 range, so it's one person.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your fast response, User:Acroterion. The edition war was bad enough, but the personal attacks were certainly getting creepy. I'll notify you if there're news on this unfortunate issue. Best regards, MaeseLeon (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Block increased to a month for the range for threats to contact the police to win an edit war.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

User:BookOfEli131 reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: 24 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Clear vandalism. Undid revision 1188299581 by MateNate50 (talk)"
 * 2)  "You’re the one without consensus. Undid revision 1188296825 by MateNate50 (talk)"
 * 3)  "This is turning into vandalism now. Undid revision 1188295573 by MateNate50 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Misleading. Undid revision 1188248524 by MateNate50 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Whether they are “extinct” or not is irrelevant. The section is about sects and groups. Undid revision 1188252126 by MateNate50 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Whether they are “extinct” or not is irrelevant. The section is about sects and groups. Undid revision 1188252126 by MateNate50 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Fairly blatant edit warring Seawolf35 T--C 18:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

User:No Drug No War reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked for vandalism)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No consensus for redirect"
 * 2)  "Redirect was performed by a now blocked IP"
 * 3)  "Undiscussed redirect"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* WP:CAREFUL */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row."

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

Comments: At 3RR but clearly edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * OP is clearly hounding my edits across articles. No Drug No War (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you stopped edit warring over the page? PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, because I've just reverted them again, so the next one would be 4RR. I've also reverted the bad edits where they have recreated articles which are duplicates of existing articles. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They've switched to pointy disruption of related articles. I don't see them working out as editors per WP:BATTLEGROUND, but that probably is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. VQuakr (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just vandalism. I've blocked them for a week. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Renewal6 reported by User:(talk) reply (Result: Reporter blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

(talk) reply (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This needs a BOOMERANG for clear NOTHERE / SOCK / LTA behaviour. Nobody  ( talk ) 10:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The OP has been confirmed as a sock puppet by Materialscientist. In any case, their edits were obvious vandalism in my own user space. Renewal6 (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

User:51.6.69.71 reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Not technically 3rr, but I've blocked anyway for the repeated removal of content. —Cryptic 19:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

User:HistoryofPashtuns reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1188466582 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1188275631 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Modern era */"
 * 4)  "/* Modern era */"
 * 5)  -
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user keeps on removing or changing a particular image unilaterally in the WP:STABLE version. Seems to have a POV against inclusion of an image that has Mahatma Gandhi in it despite it being the stable version of image and the article. They were reverted multiple times by various editors including  , but keeps on either removing the image  or changing it to their preferred cropped version that doesn't show Gandhi   , and they don't seem to be interested in discussing per WP:BRD. The user has been warned multiple times for their disruptive behaviour in various articles including a leel 4 warning which is why I'd reported them to AIV few hours back after the first revert of today, instead of issuing another warning. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit warring continues . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that the user has removed a level-4 warning by here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

User:37.220.118.185 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked for three months; block on range previously used similarly lengthened)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1188318128 by R Prazeres (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1188285542 by Jonathan A Jones (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* I am confused */ Reply"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1186986751 by R Prazeres (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP obviously being used for WP:BLOCKEVADE (see earlier ANI report here and another here), edit-warring to reinstate deleted disruptive comments on talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Block on range they had been using before being blocked also extended to same end date. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case They keep hopping IPs and they've now returned as 176.29.30.53 and 37.220.119.105 and resumed edit-warring on the same talk page (albeit over a new comment, not the old ones). Let me know if this needs a WP:ANI report for further action. R Prazeres (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've semiprotected it. —Cryptic 19:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now extended my earlier block to the range and lengthened it to six months. I have also blocked  for the same length of time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it now looks like 37.220.115.117 has joined the party, editing at the article page University of al-Qarawiyyin. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Widened it to 37.220.112.0/20, which should be the whole isp. —Cryptic 14:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

User:هؤی reported by User:Aintabli (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "are you in Gilan? we can see eachother if you want boy😘"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1186503122 by Semsûrî (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1186480442 by Golden (talk)"
 * 1)  "are you in Gilan? we can see eachother if you want boy😘"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1186503122 by Semsûrî (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1186480442 by Golden (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1186480442 by Golden (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring."
 * 2)   "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Semsûrî."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * The personal attack warning was for this message they left on Semsûrî's talkpage. Aintabli (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * CTOPS notice added to talk page Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

User:184.146.4.40 reported by User:Ternera (Result: Blocked 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 2)   "Note: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 4)   "Reverting edit(s) by 184.146.4.40 (talk) to rev. 1188665388 by Ternera: Unexplained content removal (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 6)   "Final Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They are changing DOB's of people on multiple changes and refund to provide a source for this change. When I bring it up on their talk page, they blank it. Ternera (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to question the block per se since it was a valid response to their editing, but, removing warnings from their talk page is perfectly permissible. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this information. I was previously unaware that it is allowed and I'll keep that in mind for the future! Ternera (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Word0151 reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have read. There is no point in having a table of persian loanwords, saying 'list of arabic loanwords'. you are being stubborn"
 * 2)  "what did you change, you can include in section under Persian, without spreading misinformation"
 * 3)  "By any chance are you going to create a section on latin and greek to just because sanskrit or english has borrowed from it. The citation is niether good, you need to give examples for direct borrowings from Arabic."
 * 4)  "Persian has borrowed those words from Arabic, not Hindi"
 * 5)  "Restored revision 1188194671 by Rolando 1208 (talk): These borrowings are from persian"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Consistent edit warring on Hindi. User has previously been warned for various other behaviours, including edit warring-like behaviour on Whiplash (2014 film). Warning was given on User's talk page, other users were also clear in their edit summaries that the user was being disruptive. Edits go far beyond 3RR. GraziePrego (talk) 00:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * . The situation is stable enough at the moment, with waiting for a consensus (Special:Diff/1188508113) and being required to do so (WP:ONUS), the latest removal being smaller than before, the latest re-addition by  lacking any actual justification (Special:Diff/1188524930), and  possibly having found a compromise (Special:Diff/1188627246) that hasn't been reverted yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree Why is the onus on me? It was the stable version before November 30, when Word decided to remove it. Rolando 1208 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As a point, this disputed section has been a part of the article since December 2022. Rolando was not the first to add it, and it’s been there for a year, surely that’s consensus for inclusion?
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindi&oldid=1127703539
 * GraziePrego (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , an edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. That happened, so the form of presumed consensus you're referring to has ceased to exist with the beginning of the dispute. Suddenly, there is disagreement, and it should be resolved by discussion, not reverting to a disputed revision. Especially if the only reason for that revert is "edit warring". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page ... (the article has been indef semi for over two years, in any event). Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

User:202.169.114.130 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Partially blocked 1 month)
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:

This IP has been slowly going at this since 30 November, then escalated in the last 24 hours. Appears to be static IP maybe?
 * Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 13:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

User:BlackSun1000 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor changed content on a mass scale and marked their edits as "minor", using the terminology of the Nazis in the article Führer. They repeatedly restored content despite my notices. Since they've a new editor and despite their controversial changes, I'll assume good faith and recommend that they be temporarily restricted from editing the article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Mauro Ambriz Tapia reported by User:Fermiboson (Result: page deleted, blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on List of Mexican supercentenarians."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Mexican supercentenarians."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverts are in a partial manner and can be found in the article history. Fermiboson (talk) 06:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Deleted and blocked indef. Indistinguishable from the previous creator of the article. —Cryptic 07:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Aleksandartasic2828 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Small edit, Albanian think stayed here, but only mentioned work from professor Loma, who is reliable source. We need to be tolerant here. Keep all opinions, as I respect others"
 * 2)  "Deleted without explaination and without any given reason Undid revision 1188986985 by AlexBachmann (talk)"
 * 3)  "Exactly, some professors do not agree, so there is NO CONSENSUS. We should be polite and respect each other. Undid revision 1188950741 by Botushali (talk)"
 * 4)  "There is no academic consensus, only partial consensus between in one group Undid revision 1188921111 by Βατο (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article is under the 1RR, and that is made clear by a banner on the top of the editing page. This content had been discussed several times in the past, and the editor has not brought any new argument. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Another, partial, revert. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Թուրքերի մաման քունեմ reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: &

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * Battle of Ekaterinefield
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I'm not sure if this is a personal issue(WP:HARASSMENT) or simple disruption. User:Թուրքերի մաման քունեմ, who has multiple warnings on their talk page, has chosen to not use article talk pages wherever they've edited and are currently edit-warring over two articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Wikiedit4444444 reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Withdrawn and off to dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff of last edit in edit war of April 2023, which was followed by a block from AN3

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diff of edit today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1150927031

Diff of prior p-block Special:Diff/1151095014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1151093220

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1189120770

Comments:

When this dispute last left off in April 2023, I had specifically requested that Wikiedit44444444 open an RfC on the relevant question once they are unblocked. They have instead returned to edit war. Given their similar pattern of editing at Physical attractiveness, I think that this may be approaching a CIR/NOTHERE situation. signed,Rosguill talk 21:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to talk to someone above on the edits I made, I believe that my edits are in the right at this moment, I also believe discussion on this topic would be a great way to move forward rather than out right banning those you disagree with Rosguill Wikiedit4444444 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't been banned by Rosguill. This appears to be a content dispute between only two editors, and I would suggest both of you to look for a third opinion to solve it. While this looks like edit warring, I wouldn't call it imminent to the point of having to go to the administrator's noticeboard, but I advise you that it would be much more productive to discuss the issue and seek the output of uninvolved editors (ie, no canvassing) rather than to keep the cycle of edit warring. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 22:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input I requested a third opinion. Have a great day man. Wikiedit4444444 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that this has been brought to 3O I have no issue with this being closed with no further action. signed,Rosguill talk 23:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

User:36.68.221.130 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "previous years also like this"
 * 2)  "follows usual format, as in 2023 UEFA Champions League final, goes right to left"
 * 3)  "https://www.mlssoccer.com/competitions/mls-cup-playoffs/2023/matches/clbvslafc-12-09-2023/lineups"

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:

Dispute over the formatting of a lineup table, which has been standard across American soccer articles for some time and follows the source versus what is "preferred" for European articles. As this is an American subject, it is not obligated to follow the European "standard".  Sounder Bruce  02:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In my defense, the "European" format is also used in previous years, see MLS Cup 2019, MLS Cup 2020, MLS Cup 2021, and MLS Cup 2022. It is an international standard instead of European, see 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup final and 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup final, when no European countries playing. So the argument is lost. And the warning was about rather than the line-ups. So in line-up case there has been no warning at all. 36.68.221.130 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OTHERSTUFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Our content must reflect what the source offers; the specific positions are not in the MLS lineups page. As for the order, why on earth would you start on the right side? We read left-to-right in English, so it's only natural to use that order.  Sounder Bruce  02:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The point of having exact positions is to inform which player in which spot and what were the starting formations. As there is no graph for it (yet), and the information is available (unlike in 2023 Emperor's Cup), then it should be mentioned in the article. 36.68.221.130 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not for nothing, but you have like 7 reverts in the past 24 hours. I'm pretty sure a couple are reasonably acceptable per WP:3RRNO, but most of them aren't. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I see a whole lot of reversion and no discussion on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Wiki.arfazhxss reported by User:LucrativeOffer (Result: Blocked 48 hours; blocked Nomian 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is the current consensus as of December 10, 2023"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1189185696 by Nomian (talk) this is not the status quo"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1189184366 by Nomian (talk). This is in accordance with the current status quo."
 * 4)  "Reverted due to constant Vandalism Attempts, Disruptive Edits by Nomian and A.Musketeer"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Disruptive edits by Lionel Messi Lover */"

Comments:

Edit warring to remove sourced contents from the article in a POV dispute. Engaging in personal attacks in discussions and edit summaries which is making all the discussions futile. A very new account (created on November 25) and boosted his edit counts through mostly automated edits. Looking at his recent edits, user is now starting new edit-wars in other articles. LucrativeOffer (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Diffs of the other user Nomian's reverts:
 * (reach a consensus before removing longstanding contents)
 * (maintain the status quo, you are literally destroying the article and editing against the sources)
 * (Undid revision 1188990598 by Wiki.arfazhxss (talk) let's keep the status quo and have a consensus before removing large chunks of sourced contents)
 * (Restored revision 1188709483 by Nomian (talk): Restore sourced contents)
 * (Restored revision 1188709483 by Nomian (talk): Restore sourced contents)
 * (as requested in the talk page, supported by sources)
 * (Reverted 3 edits by Lionel Messi Lover (talk): WP:DE)
 * (Reverted 3 edits by Lionel Messi Lover (talk): Further disruptive edits)
 * (reverting other unconstructive edits by Lionel Messi Lover)
 * (Undid revision 1187946370 by Lionel Messi Lover (talk) Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources)
 * (Reverted 3 edits by Lionel Messi Lover (talk): Edits doesn't the match what the sources say, use the talkpage to discuss)
 * (Restored revision 1184728745 by FrescoBot (talk): Revert POV)
 * My Explanation:
 * There has been consistent vandalism attempts in changing the history on the [| page] to show one minority as the sole victim of a war. | This is a comparison on all the edits made after June 2024 by Nomian and A.Musketeer which has repeatedly added claims and sources that puts the "Bengali Minority Hindu" as the focal point of this article. Persecution of the Bengali population happened irrespective of their race, creed, religion, but the users are constantly trying to insert articles and resources that aren't reliable while removing important sources, citations, articles.
 * Added this as part of Bengali Hindu Genocide Series
 * Removed that this is part of the history of Bangladesh
 * Added the targets by the perpetrators as only Bengali Hindus
 * Removed the targets by the perpetrators as Bengali Intellectuals and Bengali Civilians
 * Added 'Bengali Hindu Women' to the rape allegations instead of 'Bengali Women'
 * + more
 * There have been 4 different discussions by different users over this issue where the majority agreed that this was an attempt of vandalism. I myself have consulted these users over and over again. But they are claiming that I am removing resources by reverting back to changes that have been made. The users have also vandalized several other pages related to the history of Bangladesh as a whole (including vandalizing the page Rape During The Bangladesh Liberation War). Please look into the discussions for more details.
 * I have already filed complaints in Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (under Bangladesh Genocide) and have explained everything I have said in my explanation. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 11:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional Remarks:
 * LucrativeOffer seems to be another account (sock) for Nomian since, both of these users have their account opened around the same time, and have edited the same articles related to the same topic throughout the time. I had no interaction with LucrativeOffer throughout my edits, but seeing another account popping up and reporting me for this is confusing at best. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 11:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wanna make one more thing clear (and I might have mentioned this already on the comments): I haven't made any additional edits to the pages (or vandalized anything as charged) given that I already knew from the discussion pages that my edits would be reverted and taken down, and my account would be reported if I appeal. I simply reverted back to May 2022 when none of the vandalism happened. This can be seen in the latest published edit in the article.
 * Arfaz (chat) &#124; 13:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My Explanation:
 * LucrativeOffer has Arfaz (chat) &#124; 11:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Content disputes are not vandalisms, see WP:VANDAL LucrativeOffer (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know what WP:VANDAL is, and have submitted my dispute with the knowledge that this is not vandalism from my part. I have been constantly trying to revert back the changes made by a couple of groups that have been making edits throughout Bangladesh's history pages. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 11:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's the funny part: I haven't made any addition to the pages given that I already knew from the discussion pages that my edits would be reverted and taken down, and my account would be reported if I appeal. I simply reverted back to May 2022 when none of the vandalism happened. This is not Vandalism. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 13:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * LucrativeOffer is reporting on behalf of user Nomian by posting their comments and reverts. I wonder if they both have the same account. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 11:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you know what a vandalism is then you should also know that falsely labeling edits as vandalism is a form of personal attack. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry without evidence is another. If you have doubts, feel free to file a case in WP:SPI. LucrativeOffer (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an exceptional organized attempt to silence me, by a couple of users (or one). I am not accusing anyone, I am simply stating the obvious, that first of all, I haven't had any interaction with you, but you still decided to report me. Second of all, you are citing all of Nomian's comments to me. Whereas I am giving you a list of reverts, attempted reverts, vandalism made by two-three users.
 * Arfaz (chat) &#124; 13:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A full report of constant reverts can be found here: Reverts on Bangladesh Genocide
 * Constant Vandalism Attempts by user A.Musketeer on the Page | Bangladesh Genocide:
 * A full report of vandalism can be found here with the complete change of meaning and contents in the article here.
 * Attempts to make a consensus and talk to prevent organized vandalism throughout the article:
 * Organized Vandalism by far-rights from India
 * Primarily Bengali Hindus as target?
 * Disruptive Edits
 * Consensus on reverting all vandalized changes after June 04, 2023
 * A reminder that these users have a history of reporting users who go out of their way, revert edits constantly that doesn't fit their POV. Here's a couple of example from two different pages.
 * Constant Vandalism Attempts by user A.Musketeer on the Page | Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War: A full report of vandalism can be found here with the complete change of meaning and contents in the article here.
 * Recently Reported User for editing and threatening: here
 * Here's another example of another user attempting to report me.
 * I am reported by a user who's referencing Nomian's comments and reverts, on their behalf.
 * I am not the last person who's being reported for this. This is an organized attempt at vandalism that have been going on in Bangladesh's History pages. All I have been doing is reverting their edits after putting out a discussion on the talk page. Please read through the talk pages in order to understand the extent of the vandalism attempts. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 12:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wanna make one more thing clear (and I might have mentioned this already on the comments): I haven't made any additional edits to the pages (or vandalized anything as charged) given that I already knew from the discussion pages that my edits would be reverted and taken down, and my account would be reported if I appeal. I simply reverted back to May 2022 when none of the vandalism happened. This can be seen in the latest published edit in the article. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 13:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My final comment: A consensus was made in the page, and it was determined that the edits made by one of the user, and reverts made by the others were not justified. Here's one of the discussion where the topic was (and still is) thoroughly debated, and here's my post on the consensus I found from the user's feedback from the article, and their future feedback from the post's comments. Here's the final verdict.
 * I also wanna put here that Nomian already made a report here on a different user who was editing the page, with the same claim that they were vandalizing the page. Everyone trying to edit the page has been reported and reverted. If Nomian decided to report me here with their original account, they would have 2 different reports, on the same page, on the same issue. Arfaz (chat) &#124; 13:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked Wiki.arfazhxss and Nomian for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User:2603:6010:7BF0:87A0:ABC0:F92A:C4D:CCDA reported by User:344agg21 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Blue-ringed octopus."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Blue-ringed octopus."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Has been edit warring on a page that already has consensus reached. jayhawker6 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * If this is the wrong place for this please tell me. I am new to this and am not sure if a different noticeboard should be used here. User literally has said "I can do this all day" btw. jayhawker6 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User:MSL1995 reported by User:IRefuseToStudy (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:52, 9 December 2023‎
 * 2) 15:40, 11 November 2023‎
 * 3) 19:06, 18 October 2023‎
 * 4) 03:07, 21 September 2023‎
 * 5) 19:03, 26 August 2023‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor was directed to the talk page in this edit. Previous edits from other editors also contained disclaimers about change inaccuracy.

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

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

Comments:

This editor is certain of the political views of the article's subject. Several people have reverted their edits but they continue to alter the article, albeit as a small change to the first line of the summary. In the most recent correction, the editor was directed to the talk page where the subject's political views were made clear with sources. Note that there was already an existing talk notice on this issue, so there has been confusion about this topic for some time. Rather than engage in discussion, the editor reverted the article again. I assume they are acting in good faith, so it may be best to just temporarily suspend their access to the article.
 * . has reverted once in a recent 24-hour period., a supposedly brand new editor, has also reverted once. That was their 5th edit after creating an account. Their first edit was to file this report. The real question is who they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I've been editing anonymously for a little while bit I figured I should make an account to file a report and incur some responsibility. I just saw the slew of revisions going on for that article and figured I should bring it to the attention of the admins before reverting. I was not aware continual revisions by one user were only in violation if they happened within a 24-hour period, even if the revision is incorrect. IRefuseToStudy (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Aintabli reported by User:ArmenianSniper (Result: ArmenianSniper warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user is consistently failing to provide valid sources or sources all together on their claims. I am not sure if this is to be malicious or otherwise, but the fact of the matter is the behavior seems to be prevalent on Armenian-related articles. Additionally, this user has a wide range of articles marked for speedy deletion and another user protesting his actions of deletion can also be found on his "Talk" page.ArmenianSniper (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, hmmmm... Let's look at my "reverts". Here, I've archived a source that ArmenianSniper removed due to the link being dead. Here, I've explained that a reference (which they misinterpreted) is actually a website (erroneously) mirroring the original source, and then I replaced it with the original source in that specific edit. Here, I'm merely adding a page needed tag. They have even brought up this, an edit from 4 months ago.


 * To top it off, ArmenianSniper has reverted my edit in which I archived a ref with a dead link, claiming it was still inaccessible and needed subscription. And when I pointed out that they had to click the archived link, they reverted it again. Given that they have accused me of edit-warring in their very first edit following mine, it appears to me that they don't know what edit-warring exactly constitutes. Aintabli (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Overall, it is clear that although their account is older than mine, ArmenianSniper is still quite new to Wikipedia (74 edits at this point; compare to my 15,624 edits). I suggest them to read WP:CIVIL. Although they were the one to (prematurely) accuse someone of WP:EW, it is probable that they would not hold back on edit-warring given that they have directly reverted for two times (or more in total if we count each of their reverts like they would have done). Aintabli (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The first revert listed is from August. Both and  have reverted three times. Both are warned that any future reverts on the article may result in a block without further notice. I suggest you stay where you are right now, which is on the article Talk page. If that doesn't work, there are other methods of dispute resolution available to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As pointed out on my Talk page, I mistakenly counted an extra revert because of an intervening edit by AnomieBot. Therefore, Aintabli reverted only twice, not three times. The warning for Aintabli only is withdrawn.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:SentryHelios118 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1189169430 by Materialscientist (talk)"
 * 2)  "Removed unreliable information"
 * 1)  "Removed unreliable information"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Artists of alternative rock */ further edit warring"

Comments:

Long term edit warring resumed in last two days. Despite attempts to discuss and warnings about edit warring, has made it clear that they will ignore consensus and continue removing sourced content that they do not agree with. Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * . Will also leave a comment at their talk page about this matter. Aoidh (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:JDiala reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked for one week as CTOPS action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1189359826 by Andrevan (talk) Ongoing discussion on talk page. Please do not edit war."
 * 2)  "Explanation was provided for edit. Please discuss on the talk page if you disagree."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Page under 1RR. Previously warned 2 weeks ago. User_talk:JDiala Andre🚐 11:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No contest. Mea culpa. For what it's worth, the edits were nearly 24 hours apart (only off by a few hours), and the second revert was me rectifying a clearly bad-faith attempt by a user to skirt consensus on an ongoing talk page discussion. JDiala (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * and logged as CTOPS action. The fact that editors should get talk-page consensus for edits made to articles under 1RR before making them does not justify reverts of their edits, as has been pointed out to you. I have also taken under consideration JDiala's acceptance of responsibility for this. previous block for a 1RR violation (granted, eight years ago, but in exactly the same topic area to a very similar article), another, similar incident six years ago which JDiala likewise accepted responsibility for, their attitude when another 1RR violation was brought to their attention about five weeks ago, this contentious discussion (even if apparently amicably resolved) and the edits a couple of weeks ago that led to the complaint linked above, in setting the length of this block for a week and making it ArbCom-appealable only. When editing in a contentious topic area coincides with real-life armed conflict, as has been the case in this topic area for the past ten weeks (and unlikely to abate in the near future), editors have an extra responsibility to edit within policy in those areas. Saying "mea culpa" over and over won't cut it. And admins have a responsibility to impose stricter sanctions on those editors who repeatedly fall short of those expectations. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Hunnic Enjoyer 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: (not the first they have received one)

Comments:

This is not the first time Hunnic Enjoyer has edit warred to add something that favours "Turkic" entities. They generally use non-English sources with WP:VER issues, and has even managed to misrepresent them too (eg and in this now deleted talk page if admins can access it ). --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B111:4F5A:E803:7444:DC1C:7006 reported by User:Shadow311 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Ideas */Deleted the opinion of one man that creates gatekeeping rhetoric. This is for information on research, not demonizing."
 * 2)  "/* Biography */Removed comments of opinion, not fact. The deletion of unrelated quack information is all that was done. This relates nothing to scientific work."
 * 3)  "/* Biography */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It seems twinkle is not detecting the warnings that were given, check the ip's talk page to see them. Shadow311 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They did make 4 reverts, but made the fourth two minutes after the warning on their talk page so it is reasonable to assume they may not have seen it, and they have not made further reverts. I have left them a warning on their talk page in lieu of blocking them. If you are using Twinkle to generate a report and all of the pertinent information is not correctly filled out, it is up to you to fill out that information manually if necessary, as the reports should be filled out correctly.  Aoidh (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will be sure to manually fill out any future reports if twinkle does not detect it. Shadow311 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Bayoka55 reported by User:Audit2020 (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1188890195, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1187539206 22:16, 29 November 2023 User removed UNESCO Infobox without reason‎]
 * 2) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1187597533 06:29, 30 November 2023 User removed UNESCO Infobox without reason‎]
 * 3) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1187679612 19:45, 30 November 2023‎ User removed UNESCO Infobox without reason‎]
 * 4) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1189519922 10:28, 12 December 2023 User removed UNESCO Infobox without reason‎‎]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bayoka55#Silat_UNESCO_Infobox_removal_reason]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bayoka55#Silat_UNESCO_Infobox_removal_reason]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bayoka55#Silat_UNESCO_Infobox_removal_reason]

Comments:

I already tried to contact the user Bayoka55 to settle the issue in a peaceful manner on the user talk page and wait for 7 days.

The user did not respond, and on December 12, I noticed the user undid my edit again, which meant the user was online and aware of my discussion request and notification.
 * I've blocked the reporter for 72h.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

User:24.73.197.114 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

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

Comments:

User keeps making the same (or very similar) edit against talk page consensus. DVdm (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:185.104.136.29 reported by User:Eric (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1189716777 by Eric (talk) - You know you're wrong. Why don't you just make the edit without the snark?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1189707299 by Eric (talk) - No, "eyeroll" is non-constructive. Try making this edit without being snarky. I dare you."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor campaigning to restore grammar/style errors in article. Eric talk 16:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * for a day. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:BJ3789 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Declined, better suited for WP:ANI)
User being reported:

User hasn't violated 3RR, but keeps reverting unsourced information back into Puerto Rican election articles, removing coding to fix line wrapping issues, and occasionally making a complete mess, and will not respond to talk page messages requesting they discuss their edits (has zero talk or user talk edits)

Diffs of the user's reverts: (from one article)
 * 1) 22:57, 8 December 2023
 * 2) 23:38, 10 December 2023
 * 3) 18:49, 11 December 2023
 * 4) 17:25, 12 December 2023 (after being asked to stop)
 * 5) 21:16, 13 December 2023 (after a final warning and request to discuss on talk)

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

Comments:


 * . Better suited for WP:ANI Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Magadhan3933 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:

What map to use in that article has been discussed endlessly. Yet Magadhan3933 seems to think they're an exception. They were told to reach consensus here. I'm also suspecting sockpuppetry. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No. It hasn't been discussed ever in the talk section, atleast regarding the map's boundaries. Moreover I discussed with the author of the map himself, @Avantiputra7 and he himself said that we can post a map which replicates joppen's version correctly. Which we already did. Moreover, Anyone who has read it won't have a problem with it. For socket puppetry I have already explained. Magadhan3933 (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:CONSENSUS means. So our two veteran users must be lying then?  And this  is not real? HistoryofIran (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Dovidroth reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 9:14, December 10, 2023. This edit restores the following content: "The foundational charter of Hamas, published in 1988, articulated its ideology as a struggle against Jews, calling for the destruction of Israel to establish an Islamic state in its place. In later years, specifically during agreements with Fatah between 2005 and 2007, Hamas began acquiescing to the 1967 borders as an interim solution..." that I removed in this edit.
 * 2) 9:32, December 10, 2023.. This edit removes "Hamas's repeated offers of a truce (for a period of 10–100 years) based on the 1967 borders are seen by many as being consistent with a two-state solution..." that I previously added in this edit and this edit.

Basically, there is an ongoing content dispute on how to phrase the third paragraph of the lead. You can read about it at Talk:Hamas (the section is called that because it was started as a result of Dovidroth edit-warring). There was some back and forth there, but Dovidroth's last discussion there was Nov 26. Instead of waiting for consensus, they now seem to be edit-warring to get their version in. What's more confusing is that the version they're trying to get in isn't even the one they supported on the talk page.

I tried to get them to self-revert on their talk page, but they don't believe they've violated 1RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my last comment that I made immediately after my last revert

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

VR talk 08:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I did one revert that went bad due to a technical error, and then I worked to repair the errors I created. Another user (Makeandtoss) interleaved in my repair efforts but I reached an agreement with them in the talk. This was not two reverts, and I do not see any information that I reverted in common between my two edits. Dovidroth (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you edited twice to remove information that's two reverts, regardless of your "technical error", unless your "technical errors" are followed by a self-revert then you're in violation of 1RR. TarnishedPathtalk 09:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears Dovidorth did a fix to an editing mistake from the published above, she/he/they wrote in their/her/his edit summary that they/he/she made a mistake and therefore was removing accidental duplicated content, no one was reverted. Furthermore, Dovidorth wrote above that the user and Makeandtoss reached an agreement in talk. This looks like an honest mistake, we are all human and it seems exaggerated to say its a violating of 1RR since Dovidorth was fixing after him/her/theyself and especially since we need to assume WP:Goodfaith and it appears Dovidorth acted in good faith and acted well to repair and admitted the mistake in edit summary. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Except I gave Dovidroth ample opportunity to self-revert by politely pointing out their mistake to them, and only when they refused to self-revert did I file this report. If they acted in good faith why did they not self-revert once asked to do so? VR talk 11:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dovidorth explained himself earlier, and Dovidorth said that it had been worked out and fixed. So if the problem was fixed, and the extra revert was in order to fix a mistake Dovidorth made then what's the problem? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, I realized it was too late to self-revert anyway because of conflicting intermediate edits in that article. Dovidroth (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope the closing admin will recognize that I intended to do a revert on 9:14 as evidenced by the edit summary I left but unintentionally left both the old and new version, and the rest of my work was trying to fix this in good faith. The 1RR rule is not intended to be a weapon against people that are simply struggling with a technical issue and not edit warring. Dovidroth (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not true that your second edit merely attempted to fix the issue of your first. If that was the case you'd simply have self-reverted to the version immediately before your mistake. Your second edit continued to undo my edits, as shown above.
 * You seemed to have wanted to undo several of my edits. Instead of undoing several of my edits in a single edit (which would not have resulted in 1rr), you accidentally reverted them over several non-consecutive edits (which is indeed a 1rr vio). And then you refused to self-revert when I asked on your user talk page. VR talk 11:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, my second edit was not a revert and I didn't intend it to be so. I was trying to fix duplicated content. I asked you to provide a link for a self-revert and you didn't, probably because there wasn't one after so many intermediate edits by other editors. Dovidroth (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Your second edit removed, among other things, "While initially seeking a state in all of Mandatory Palestine", which is the "half a sentence" you objected to a couple of weeks ago at talk. You clearly intended to remove the wording you disagree with. As for how you self-revert when there are intervening edits, I explained on your talk page.VR talk 13:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to revert anything with the second edit. The half sentence as it appeared made no sense whatsoever (a sentence in English beginning with while must have a second half, which it did not), unlike when I objected to it on the talk page when it was a complete sentence and I objected to the content. And your instructions to revert with intervening edits were not instructions to revert but to edit on your behalf and to synthesize something new. Dovidroth (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked you, and still am asking you, to revert the lead's 3rd paragraph to what it was immediately before your reverts. Never asked you to synthesize something new.VR talk 13:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Imo, this seems a matter for AE. Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are being too harsh. I've reviewed the list of edits performed by Dovidroth, and this is a case of a single revert that went wrong (leaving both the new and old text - clearly not the intention of the editor) followed by subsequent attempts to repair the mistake by a series of other, slightly confused edits. During those edits, an edit conflict occurred with another editor was amicably rectified through the talk page. Was this an 'edit war'? No. we should not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles, which is preventing edit wars, not punishing users that made a mess and tried to fix their errors - we are only human. Marokwitz (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't opining on the merits, just the venue. Selfstudier (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I saw the edits you mentioned and it looks like Dovidroth made an honest mistake and he fixed himself. He also explained himself here and his reasoning makes sense. I am not sure this warrants a noticeboard incident.Eladkarmel (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging since she imposed the sanctions that DR is currently under, just to see where this is under them. I'm inclined, after reviewing the above (for once it's a good thing a discussion spilled over here), the talk page discussions and the edit history to believe on good faith that it was a genuine error by DR. But I'd feel more comfortable with a more informed eye reviewing this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel, I appreciate your caution, but I seriously doubt there are sockpuppets editing in the Hamas article, which is extended-confirmed protected (as part of Arbpia). My ban precludes me from restoring contributions made by banned editors, which has nothing to do with this case (a purpoted 1RR violation, applied to everyone). I don't object Tamzin reviewing this case anyway, though. She is an impartial administrator and I trust her judgement. Dovidroth (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances and the time that has passed since this, I think a warning at most is sufficient for now. - Aoidh (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

User:NguyenDuyAnh1995 reported by User:Stvbastian (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Performance timeline */Changing from original version of Performance timeline is not based on any rule. For example: is it compulsory to use #R instead of R#? Or  flag icons is not “merely decorative” so why shouldn’t be used?"
 * 2)  "/* Performance timeline */Discussions are on my talk page."
 * 3)  "The data from BWF websites is R16, R32... instead of 1R, 2R...The number of rounds before QF are different between tournaments and changing R32 to 1R or R16 to 2R is not always accurate. Also flag icons are not forbidden as they have been presented on the performance timelines of Lin Dan, Lee Chong Wei and some others."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Gao Ling."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Re: Gao Ling's performance timeline */"

Comments:

I change User:NguyenDuyAnh1995 edits per MOS:FLAG and WP:BADM, but NguyenDuyAnh1995 three times revert my edits, without waiting until the discussion finish. Stvbastian (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * So there’s a discussion between us. But I reverted yours, then you reverted mine, then I reverted yours, then you reverted mine, then I made the 3rd reversion and you decided to report. What I see here is that I don’t know the rule but you do. And you do the same reverting act and wait for me to do the 3rd time to report without any warning that I might face that. Very nice!
 * NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment I don’t know about this 3RR rule before. And in the editing of article Gao Ling, the one who reported me, also reverted my edits twice, with each of them right after my 1st and 2nd reversion of his edits. He did the same things as I did, but he clearly knew this rule and waited for me to do the 3rd reversion to report without any warning or informing. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The diff provided as "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" is nothing of the sort, and as far as I can see NguyenDuyAnh1995's talk page has never received any sort of edit warring notification, so what they said about not being aware of it is not unreasonable. Also, three diffs are provided which matches what I see, which is not a 3RR violation, and Stvbastian has also made three reverts and presumably was aware of WP:EW when making those three reverts, so if NguyenDuyAnh1995's activity on the article warranted a block, Stvbastian's certainly would as well. While neither editor has used the article's talk page to discuss the topic, NguyenDuyAnh1995 has made an attempt to discuss the matter at Stvbastian's talk page and at WikiProject Badminton. you both have been edit warring and are both now aware of the policy on edit warring; take this as a warning that further edit warring from either of you will likely result in a block. Since this is apparently a dispute over a stylistic issue that isn't specific to this one article, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Badminton seems a reasonable place to resolve this, though it might help to comment on the article's talk page directing editors who may be watching the page to that discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I’m not familiar with Wikipedia rules and regulations so sometime I might have violated them without realization. Thus I appreciate warnings and recommendations and am willing to discuss the matter.
 * NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Mak geekey reported by User:Aspects (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  edit summary of "Minor image edit" while removing infobox, marked minor edit
 * 2)  edit summary of "Decluttered" while removing infobox, marked minor edit
 * 3)  edit summary of "Cleared redundant image" while removing infobox, marked minor edit
 * 4)  edit summary of "Minor cleanup edit" while removing infobox, marked minor edit
 * 5)  edit summary of "Minor edit. Decluttered" while removing infobox, marked minor edit
 * 6)  edit summary of "Cleaned up and decluttered page" while removing infobox, marked minor edit
 * 7)  edit summary of "Clean-up" while removing infobox, marked minor edit
 * 8)  no edit summary while removing file, marked minor edit
 * 9)  no edit summaries while removing fair use rationale

Diffs of User:MakGeekeyy's reverts:
 * 1)  edit summary of "Cleaned up and clutter-free minor edit" while removing infobox, marked minor edit
 * 2)  edit summary of "Cleaning up page and making it clutter-free" while removing file, marked minor edit
 * 3)  no edit summary of while removing infobox, marked minor edit
 * 4)  edit summary of "Made page clutter-free" while removing file, marked minor edit

Diffs of User:MakGeekky's reverts:
 * 1)  edit summary of "Decluttered. Edit of logo" while removing file, marked minor edit
 * 2)  edit summary of "decluttered page" while removing file, marked minor edit
 * 3)  no edit summary while removing file, marked minor edit
 * 4)  no edit summary while removing file, marked minor edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for User:Mak geekey Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for User:MakGeekeyy Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for User:MakGeekky

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: for User:Mak geekey Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: for User:MakGeekeyy Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: for User:MakGeekky

Comments:

This user first was removing the file from the infobox in March 2023, then came back with two new user names in November and December 2023, while either removing the file from the infobox or deleting the infobox from the article. They are using sockpuppet accounts, marking edits as minor when they are not, and using false edit summaries, all while trying to removing a file from the article that is still in use on the school's website. They have not responded to warnings given on any of the three user talk pages and made no edits to the article's talk page. Aspects (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

User:BrickMaster02 reported by User:Happily888 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "https://tvtonight.com.au/2023/04/airdate-north-shore.html Please leave me alone."
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by BrickMaster02 (talk): Actually, forget it. I'm in a losing battle, and going to get banned regardless."
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Happily888 (talk): It was produced in Australia, and it wasn't an original there, so it stays removed..."
 * 4)  "/* English language */ "North Shore" ended up as a 10 Original."
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Happily888 (talk): It was produced in Australia, and it wasn't an original there, so it stays removed..."
 * 2)  "/* English language */ "North Shore" ended up as a 10 Original."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Incorrect use of minor edits check box on List of Paramount+ original programming."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Paramount+ original programming."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 1190028076 by BrickMaster02 (talk) you have already been warning about WP:EW on your talk page; you don't WP:OWN this article, you need to WP:DISCUSS"

Comments:

Has already been involved and warned in previous edit warrring incidents. They do not discuss reversions on talk page and incorrectly use the minor edits checkbox. They edit as though they WP:OWN articles. Happily888 (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I already realized my mistake, and gave up. I apologize for what I did, and thought I was doing an edit that helped service the article. Guess any edit and action I make is a mistake, and I will never be redeemed on this site. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While the user's editing interactions could be better, their recent edits to this article do not reach the level of blockable edit warring, especially given the self-reversion of their last revert. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Nottedeluce reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The reported user has been heavily reconstructing a featured article and disregarding multiple users' concerns. WP:BLP-related issues are also involved. KyleJoan talk 11:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Bayoka55 reported by User:Audit2020 (Result: Stale and retaliatory; reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1188890195, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1187539206 22:16, 29 November 2023 User removed UNESCO Infobox without reason‎]
 * 2) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1187597533 06:29, 30 November 2023 User removed UNESCO Infobox without reason]
 * 3) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1187679612 19:45, 30 November 2023‎ User removed UNESCO Infobox without reason‎]
 * 4) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silat&diff=1189572548&oldid=1189519922 10:28, 12 December 2023 User removed UNESCO Infobox without reason‎‎]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bayoka55&diff=prev&oldid=1189697535 The user removed my warning notification on the user talk page and provide no reason too]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silat&oldid=1190197185 I have added new topic on the article talk page but so far there are no response from other editors]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bayoka55&diff=prev&oldid=1189697535 The user removed my notification on the user talk page and provide no reason too]

Comments:

I have not made any new edits to the said article since the last revert by the said user. I would like to request administrator intervention on this and for the administrator to revert the said user's last edit. What I want to do is just a simple article improvement, which is to add a UNESCO Infobox that contains verified information by UNESCO and does not change any other existing information.

I already tried to contact the user to settle the issue in a peaceful manner on the user talk page and waited for more than 7 days, but the user removed my attempt to contact them on the user talk page (you may check the user talk page history). I also added a new topic on the article page to discuss this new information, but so far there have been no responses from other editors or the said user itself.
 * Stale and retaliatory. is warned that if they continue down this road, they risk being blocked again. This is a meritless report, an abuse of process, and at best WP:POINTy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Could you help advise what route or option I have here to reach the issue resolution?
 * The other party is not cooperative or responsive for me to have a meaningful discussion and reach a conclusion. Audit2020 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

User:StarryNightSky11 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeatedly removing the same single MOS:OXFORD comma from the article lead, after being told that this goes against the guidance for articles to be internally consistent. Same behaviour on other articles such as United Kingdom where they've also inconsistently removed the same single comma from the lead four times in 48 hours. Belbury (talk) 09:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

User:138.88.248.199 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked for a week)
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:

''These are reinstatements of talkpage soapboxing

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

Comments:


 * General talkpage pot-stirring in an area prone to such behavior, accusations of sockpuppetry .  Acroterion   (talk)   01:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * CTOPS notice left on article talk page as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Theoneandonlylinguist09 reported by User:Andrevan (Result: Blocked 2 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1190683350 by Andrevan (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1190670340 by Andrevan (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1190669151 by Theoneandonlylinguist09 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1190669286 by Theoneandonlylinguist09 (talk)"
 * 5)  "←Removed redirect to Satya (disambiguation)"
 * 6)  "←Removed redirect to Satya (disambiguation)"
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to Satya (disambiguation)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring."
 * 3)   "/* December 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: user hijacking redirect repeatedly to create article without sources, won't respond in a cordial way on talk Andre🚐 06:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:196.61.229.84 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */"
 * 2)  "/* top */"
 * 3)  "/* top */"
 * 4)  "/* top */"
 * 5)  "/* top */"
 * 6)  "/* History */ Additional information"
 * 7)  "/* Academics */ Additional information"
 * 8)  "/* History */"
 * 1)  "/* Academics */ Additional information"
 * 2)  "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on St Catherine's School, Germiston."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Citation needed */ reply"

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced information about the headteacher's work experience to this school article. Edit warring warning posted on user's Talk page, discussion on article Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

User:FlameZ24X reported by User:Danners430 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1190967138 by Sebbers10 (talkAye, I apologise for the strong language, but stop undoing the edit. Its a perfectly reliable source, and just because its come from flickr doesnt mean its unreliable. How else are photo refs meant to be shared?)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1190965936 by Sebbers10 (talkGrow up, its litterally a ref for wheel bogie numbers, why the piss would it be editted. Just because it was posted on flikr doesnt mean its an "unreliable" source. Explain to me how the living fuck you want photo refs shared without social media.)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1190964678 by Sebbers10 (talkyou can get a life aswell, the photo is a perfectly reliable source. Stop being a tosser for the fun of it.)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1190959891 by Murgatroyd49 (talkFlickr is a reliable source, now get a life and stop undoing the pissing edits. About 5 people have disagreed with you come to some bloody sense...))"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reporting due to 3RR violation and highly inappropriate edit summaries Danners430 (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There seems to be sockpuppetry (or at least meatpuppetry) involved here,  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Lovemjseo reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Left 3RR warning with additional explanation and stressed the need for taking it to article talk page. POV edits here and on Nick McKenzie.  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The contribution history of the editor clearly indicate that they are a WP:SPA and they have repeatedly edited to introduce non-WP:NPOV material and unreliable sources as defined by WP:RSP against WP:BLPUNDEL at Peter Schiff. Tar<b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 04:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 has indeffed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:1014:B084:269B:98A6:59AC:E839:7D1E reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Rangeblocked)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "please stop edit waring"
 * 2)  "you still think im him, im just a second opinion"
 * 3)  "guess again, thats not whats going on"
 * 4)  "its fine"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Comments:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) Again after creation of this report  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at THX and Stanford University, seems to be WP:NOTHERE Cerebral726 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia refuses to be a forum but at the same time it is happy to occupy the central position in culture where a forum should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B084:269B:98A6:59AC:E839:7D1E (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The IP range Special:Contributions/2600:1014:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 has already been blocked twice, and more recently partially blocked from certain articles. To me, it looks like that decision was too narrow; a full rangeblock would be more appropriate with this friction-prone IP range. Binksternet (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also edit warring at List of scientific publications by John von Neumann. And Kepler-62f. And Home Alone 3. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've extended the block site wide, but shortened the duration to 3 months.-- Ponyo bons mots 21:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The block log doesn't say it's site-wide. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I missed the most important step: actually converting the block to site wide. Done now!-- Ponyo bons mots 21:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Daviddayag reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1191136139 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1191015886 by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1190343442 by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)"
 * 4) Again after this report  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Andromeda Galaxy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Aoidh (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Saufy Jauhary reported by User:Ckfasdf (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "They are included within the Algerian Arabic page, as it is for pages like Tunisia and Libya, if it's not the case why the edits in those pages are considered legit and mine not, and which rule I am infringing ?"
 * 2)  "Editing in wikipedia isn't about making sense or not, I reclassified Algerian Arabic as Local vernacular go have a look at Tunisia page or Libya or other countries they have that too, If it's non sense explain why."
 * 3)  "I didn't only add references I also reclassified languages."
 * 4)  "it does."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They blanked the various warnings (including 3R) on their talk page and continued to edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What rule did I infringe editing the page ? KaderRocket (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:3R. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the edits that I did, I am not the one who started the war I was the one who edited the page and reclassified languages and adding sources ? KaderRocket (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to mention that this user has previously received multiple warnings advising them to avoid edit warring in Algeria. Despite this, the user ignored the advice and proceeded to blank their talk page from any warnings. Skitash (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not true, I won the warring that day because my edits were legit and the proof is that my edits made it. KaderRocket (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I won the warring that day that says it all. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * what does it says ? I won yes the warring was not started by me and I won because my edits were not infringing any Wikipedia Rule. KaderRocket (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

User:SiaForChange reported by User:Archer1234 (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of user's first edit to add contentious content:

Diffs of the user's reverts to re-insert contentious content:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

is adding photographs that other editors believe (in good faith) are not appropriately licensed (they have been nominated for deletion on commons). The user may also have a COI with the article's subject. &mdash; Archer  (t·c) 14:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Aldin 2023 reported by User:Vpab15 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Member states */"
 * 2)  "/* Member states */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Repeated warnings by several editors, but user continues to be disruptive. Vpab15 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a multiple-article issue against warnings; perhaps a 72-hour block will work. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

User:114.125.133.223 and User:HansoGalaxy reported by User:Czello (Result: Page already protected, users warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

IP


 * 1)  "Revert unjustified removal of information"
 * 2)  "Revert paid editing by a paid editor, a clear violation of Wikimedia rules"
 * 3)  "Revert paid editor editing. Maybe it's time for you to refund Cahill"
 * 4)  "Revert paid editing by a paid editor, a clear violation of Wikimedia rules"
 * 5)  "Revert paid editor who is clearly engaging in bad faith argument"
 * 6)  "Lots of sources are provided already, snap out of it"
 * 7)  "Revert unjustified reversion based on a bad faith argument"
 * 8)  "Revert vandals who sought to present branding information instead of the truth"
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 1)

HansoGalaxy
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:



Comments:
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

User:2001:2042:3C9D:3100:DE03:98FF:FE2A:E138 reported by User:Felida97 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Home care */"
 * 2)  "/* Telecommunications */"
 * 3)  "/* Unilever Grosantel */"
 * 1)  "/* Telecommunications */"
 * 2)  "/* Unilever Grosantel */"
 * 1)  "/* Unilever Grosantel */"
 * 1)  "/* Unilever Grosantel */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps inserting the same kind of content (sections for supposed subsidiaries with just one unsourced statement about their founding date) to various articles (Unilever Pakistan, Unilever Philippines, Hindustan Unilever, List of Sony products, Unilever). Other IPs with the same editing pattern:

Besides the edit warring, I think this may just be (odd) vandalism as none of the added company names yield any Google results (though that may be due to them being local companies), especially considering some of their other edits like or. <b style="color:black">Felida</b><sup style="color:black">97 (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring on Unilever Pakistan. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:StardustToStardust reported by User:Pbritti (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:, previously blocked for one day from another article for EW

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are several discussions open on the article about this content, but here's an example diff.

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

Comments:


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone else is looking at this report, StardustToStardust's previous block for edit-warring was for three days, not one day as the filer stated.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies—thanks for the correction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems inevitable. If not for edit warring, WP:NOTHERE would likely have led to the same end. BD2412  T 03:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Randy Kryn reported by User:DementiaGaming (Result: Malformed)
User being reported: User:Randy Kryn

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

00:26, 24 December 2023‎ Randy Kryn talk contribs‎ 146,497 bytes +1,498‎  Undid good faith revision (the RfC has been reopened, so the images would be brought back to the pages until the issue is decided, thanks 23 December 2023 curprev 20:23, 23 December 2023‎ DementiaGaming talk contribs‎  144,999 bytes −1,498‎  Undid revision 1191375894 by Randy Kryn Per RfC curprev 04:39, 23 December 2023‎ Randy Kryn talk contribs‎  146,497 bytes +1,498‎  brought back unexplained removal of opening image  curprev 03:36, 23 December 2023‎ DementiaGaming talk contribs‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [] DementiaGaming (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please rethink adding this. There was no 3RR, by either of us. Here's what happened: You left no edit summary when you removed the collage from 1960s, I then returned it. You informed me that the obscure RfC had decided this. I then went to the closers talk page, where another editor had already left an adequate explanation of why the RfC should be reopened, and I agreed. The closer was fair enough to understand, and reopened the RfC. Which is when I added back the 1960s collage, per the close being reversed., after reading much of the RfC, which I only became aware of when you left the warning at my talk page, I can see how this has been a time sink for you and that you feel strongly about it. But please realize that there was little notification of the RfC, which occurred at the WikiProject Years without alerting editors of the various decades by leaving a note on the articles talk pages or alerting (unless I'm wrong) other WikiProjects who have their templates on the decades articles. In any case, please neutrally follow the sequence of edits and I trust that you will realize that your complaint against me is unfounded and unfactual. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

User:156.57.11.183 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1191581794 by FlightTime (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1191476256 by FlightTime (talk) Edit_warring; not for you to decide what's noteworthy, take it to talk per guidelines if you have issues"
 * 3)  "/* Early life and education */ exp"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */ exp"
 * 5)  "/* Early life and education exp"
 * 1)  "/* Early life and education exp"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow editwarring - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * . The first edits by the IP were an addition and do not count as a revert, meaning the IP reverted only twice, and the second time was well outside the 24-hour window. Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Murphyfun reported by User:Loafiewa (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1191602485 by Loafiewa (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1191500213 by Death Editor 2 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has been told to discuss their changes on the talk page,    a total of 4 times, and has ignored all of them, as seen in their latest diff. Loafiewa (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Carigval.97 reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There's no Refbomb"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has engaged in an edit war, making already three reverts in less than a day (see history) and disregarding Wikipedia policy Bedivere (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Three reverts? Nice of you to list them all. Of course, you didn't list your reverts. You are warned to leave the article alone. You nominated it for deletion, and it's not a good idea to remove large amounts of material after you've done so. Just let the AfD proceed to disposition, and stop edit-warring with the author.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do Bedivere (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Trailblazer101 reported by User:Nyxaros (Result: Pblocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not on the talk page, I found out about it later:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the talk page, I found out about it later:

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

Comments: I agree that the two or three diffs above are useful, but I wanted to add them anyway. As you can see, the user has kept reverting directly to the version he wanted without proper communication with the IPs and me, writing his justifications as edit summaries. When I restored my change, he wrote the same thing and chose to warn me, ignoring his changes on the page and the talk page. ภץאคгöร 07:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have merely upheld the WP:STATUSQUO and reverted vandalism and disruptive editing in the article, and asked the IP and this editor to civily discuss rather than reinstating their contested edits, which they did so even after I explained my reverts. This report is preemptive at best and comes as a talk discussion is already underway. Seeking constructive and civil editing from other editors has seriously led to this? Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, did you wait for my message on your talk page to supposedly take an action now? So much "vandalism" and "disruptive editing" shouldn't lead to multiple undos and reverts. You could've discussed with other editors, requested for page protection, or even reported the IPs. ภץאคгöร  07:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually did request for page protection already at Requests_for_page_protection/Increase. I warned the IPs on their talks where applicable, though only so much action can be handled with slow response times and multiple differing IPs and intermittent edits resulting in a mixed bag of constructive and unconstructive edits being made from the last clean version. The talk page has not seen any new discussions for months, and most of the edits I reverted were disruptive. I don't feel the need to further plead my case or explain my edits here. I am merely seeking constructive efforts to be had in this encyclopedia. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Though I will say the time between you reverting my revert of your already contested addition to you starting a talk discussion and then making this report is very slim and did not allow for amicable time to discuss this situation before you perpetuated it here in a bad light. That is not how this process ought to be handled. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, then why didn't you stop your part of edit warring and let the page be protected first? ภץאคгöร  08:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I do not believe in leaving unconstructive, contested edits up when I see them, and will not turn a blind eye to them just to wait. If another editor stepped in, would this even be an issue, or is it just because I have conveniently become one of the few contributors actively editing this article against disruptions whilst constructively expanding it (which I intend to continue, hence why I'm trying to focus on that over further entertaining this)? Is that so bad? We can keep going back-and-forth with questions and explanations, though I don't see the benefit in doing that anymore. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then everyone would revert everyone else's changes as many times as they want without proper discussion. No way. Instead of questioning the handling of this discussion, you should have questioned your own actions and taken the right measures, and simply talked about it on the talk page in the first place. There is a pattern of edit warring, including the removal of sourced information, that cannot be ignored. ภץאคгöร  12:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Pblocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Ironcladded reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

uses WP:ASPERSIONS relating to WP:ARBPIA. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Properly warned at User talk:2601:281:8300:3390:982F:A5A9:AA06:BFD7. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

tgeorgescu (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

Several IPs have been edit warring and now a newbie pops out of the blue. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

User:2601:281:8300:3390:982F:A5A9:AA06:BFD7 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removing the name "Palestine", not the name of the region until 132 CE as Syria Palestina. Have put this page forward for a protection request due to an edit war and use of the name Palestine for polemic, rather than historical, reasons"
 * 2)  "This page was edited to say "Palestine" as a political statement. The name Palestine did not apply to the region until 132CE, when it was changed by the Romans. The name of the province was Judea. This page should be locked to prevent further edits for political points"
 * 1)  "This page was edited to say "Palestine" as a political statement. The name Palestine did not apply to the region until 132CE, when it was changed by the Romans. The name of the province was Judea. This page should be locked to prevent further edits for political points"
 * 1)  "This page was edited to say "Palestine" as a political statement. The name Palestine did not apply to the region until 132CE, when it was changed by the Romans. The name of the province was Judea. This page should be locked to prevent further edits for political points"
 * 1)  "This page was edited to say "Palestine" as a political statement. The name Palestine did not apply to the region until 132CE, when it was changed by the Romans. The name of the province was Judea. This page should be locked to prevent further edits for political points"
 * 1)  "This page was edited to say "Palestine" as a political statement. The name Palestine did not apply to the region until 132CE, when it was changed by the Romans. The name of the province was Judea. This page should be locked to prevent further edits for political points"

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

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

Comments:

AKA User:Ironcladded. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think the IP is the same as the user, go to SPI.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a request which checkusers knee-jerk reject (i.e. tying an username to an IP). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. Maybe ANI then. I've full-protected the article in the meantime  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is the edit to "in Palestine" being accepted despite the continuous debate on the topic and both of these users unilaterally decided to make the edit? There has not been consensus that I can see on the name of the article. Ironcladded (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:EvergreenFir, I did not see this. But I posted this same trend of IPs below. Will just re-mention it here. I think User:Ironcladded is the different IPs that has reverted 3 times already today and perhaps even before this in the past few days. Here are the IPs, , , , . And here is Ironcladded . This is WP:Disruptive editing either way and looks like 3RR may have been violated.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu reported by User:Ironcladded (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
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:

AKA User:Tgeorgescu. Ironcladded (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, 3 reverts are allowed, 4 or more aren't. I did take it to the talk page, you didn't. The user is a provocateur casting WP:ASPERSIONS relating to WP:ARBPIA. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are being reported for edit warring and making reverts without attempt to proceed on the talk page. The administrators and I can both see that your attempts to talk about the issue were performed after your 3 edits were made. Retroactively attempts to solve problems doesn't count as attempting to solve them. It seems you have previously been reported for battleground behavior. Ironcladded (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Vexatious report.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:EvergreenFir, I think User:Ironcladded is the different IPs that has reverted 3 times already today and perhaps even before this in the past few days. Here are the IPs, , , , . And here is Ironcladded . This is WP:Disruptive editing either way and looks like 3RR may have been violated.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you just casting aspersions that I am every IP address who disagrees with you? Ironcladded (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The odds are very high for your edits being either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, WP:DUCK being of application. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you and Ramos 1990 the same person with alternate accounts? Ironcladded (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you like to compute the odds of that being true? What both me and ramos1990 edited are some Bible history articles and abiogenesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This is closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:EnderKutokuari
Flag of Kyrgyzstan. Keeps reverting to the old flag even when reliable sources indicate that the new flag is now official. 108.160.120.91 (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This nomination is malformed, please click the button at the top of the page. has exceeded 3RR now. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 08:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:EnderKutokuari reported by User:108.160.120.91 (Result: Protected)
Page: Flag of Kyrgyzstan

User being reported: User:EnderKutokuari

Previous version reverted to:, et. al.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - by here, it was 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None available. Reliable sources point to the Kyrgyz flag being changed. This shouldn't even be a discussion for the talk page.

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

Comments:

This is at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. An IP and a new editor definitely had a small edit war but this report should probably be closed as no action as I have fully protected the article for three days and ANI might be better able to handle the underlying issue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)