Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive477

User:Abdihakimper reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Blocked indefinitely,User:Linkjan2014 blocked for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor continues editing disruptively despite being warned on numerous occasions and by different editors, e.g., , , , and.

They've already been blocked twice in November for disruptive edits and, and then once more 10 days ago  where they were blocked indefinitely from editing the Awdal article.

Following their block on Awdal, they've now moved on to make the same disruptive edits on the Gabiley article, as can be seen on their history page, they're clearly not here to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Many thanks -- Kzl55 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

User:2605:B100:324:E730:99CA:E2F3:8D51:B1D8 reported by User:Skyerise (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Indeed, the IP appears to be concentrating on just the one page, since coming to the project. An WP:SPA situation, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Gonnym reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1192107637 by Lady Lotus (talk) your removal of this information is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a filmography article and these are episode articles (not even redirects) which this actor appeared in. You have no wikipedia guideline that supports this removal other than your own bases opinions here"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1192089298 by Lady Lotus (talk) don't link essays and who cares how long it makes it. This isn't paper and we aren't short on space. Would you remove all links to Mission: Impossible in Tom Cruz's list and just link the series?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1191924645 by Lady Lotus (talk) that is your opinion not a guideline. Links provide readers with the ability to access the articles and not guess to what article that belongs to"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User made an edit to add in 3+ episode names of each episode for the series What If, I reverted as WP:FILMOGRAPHY doesn't list any episode titles after 2 episodes. I wrote in my edit summary "Dont need episode names if over 2 episodes", they reverted saying it was only my opinion. The next revert I did then cited WP:FILMOGRAPHY as maybe the user wasn't aware of why I reverted it, it also makes the notes ridiculously long compared to other notes, was again reverted saying not to link essays (which yes I'm aware that WP:FILMOGRAPHY is an essay on style but most film/actor editors adhere to it so it has a consistency throughout wiki, he also stated "who cares how long it makes it", seemingly defensive. I did one last revert and told them they made a WP:BOLD edit, and to gain consensus or I'd have admins become involved, was reverted yet again. Note: other editors have gone it and removed the list of episodes he's trying to add, it's not just myself. Love to have some intervention here as to not keep going back and forth, and I don't see a dialogue between them and myself as being helpful, just round and round.

Other pages affected over the same edits:
 * Jon Favreau filmography
 * List of Benedict Cumberbatch performances‎
 * List of Samuel L. Jackson performances‎ LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:FILMOGRAPHY is an essay, which means it has zero community backing, and even it does not say "do not link episodes". The articles in question are filmography articles, which means we list and link appearences that said actors appeared in. Arguing that one needs to find consensus to add valid links to a filmography list is just crazy. It's even worse when the argument used Dont need episode names if over 2 episodes is not used for film entries. Should we remove all 3 Iron Man links from Favreau's list and just write Iron Man (film series) with a date range? What is the difference? Valid links in a sub-topic should not need, ever, to be a product of a local consensus, because that will eventually lead to bad places. That could mean that in award pages, such as List of awards and nominations received by Robert Downey Jr., fan of a specific actor could get a local consensus to get rid of bad awards such as Golden Raspberry Awards.
 * Now if actor is a series main and appeared in all episodes of the season, then I can see the rational for just linking the season itself, but when there are 3 episodes in two seasons, how are we serving our readers by sending them to go look for themselves? I know where to look and it took me a while to find out what episodes the "3 episodes" was refering to. That is just horrible usage of a digital space.
 * Finally, no other editor removed the links while this happend. Gonnym (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are linking individual episodes that happen to have a wiki page to their notes section, it is not the same as linking Iron Man, Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 which are separate films. If someone wanted to look at the specific episodes, they can as they are linked in What If..., adding 3 or more makes the notes look sloppy and long when other notes are short and concise. And another editor did remove them, see this edit and this one. LADY LOTUS • TALK 22:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between an episode and a film other than one's opinion on their worth. The episode's themselves are WP:NOTABLE. If you think they aren't, you are more than welcome to send them to WP:AFD. The criteria for entries in a filmography list cannot be "every film can be included" (including Jon Favreau "deleted scene" only entry), yet episodes with articles are excluded if an actor was unlucky to appear in three episodes and not one. One edit was after you started this. Also both edits are the same editor and you wrote plural. You've also reverted their edit in your rush to revert, so not only are you edit warring yourself, you revert unrelated stuff as well. Gonnym (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No other input? LADY LOTUS • TALK 03:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Koavf reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 09:49, 25 December 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts: User's preferred version is to re-insert an external link to Curlie:
 * 1) 20:38, 27 December 2023
 * 2) 01:08, 28 December 2023
 * 3) 08:34, 28 December 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is already aware of WP's edit warring policy. They were previously blocked for two years (with many other EW blocks leading to that) before being unblocked in 2022. In their unblock request (accepted by ) they claimed:

That's not consistent with their current actions.

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

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

Comments:

The user claims in their edit summaries that "there needs to be a consensus to remove", but they are solely reverting two other editors, with no demonstrated support to their preferred version. In fact, it seems they added this content four years ago under a non-transparent edit summary of "fixed dashes using a script" on a mislabeled "minor" edit. Their edit warring now is claiming four years of WP:SILENCE as justification, an essay which itself says that Silence is the weakest form of consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Expand report by sbaio. Adding the same behavior at (6 December 2023, 27 December 2023, 28 December 2023) and  (27 December 2023, 28 December 2023). In addition, regarding the Indiana Pacers page – the link to Curlie was originally added by the reported editor on 1 February 2020 so it looks like WP:OWNERSHIP at this point. A discussion in early December 2023 at Wikipedia talk:External links has taken place, but the editor's behavior seems to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at this point (even WP:POINTY some times) and the editor has been blocked for edit warring many times (despite making promises not to do it). – sbaio 11:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like they believe that merely because the link might not be spam, that they alone have carte blanche to add a link that is WP:ELMAYBE at best, even if others don't think it is an improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to point out that the diffs
 * 20:38, 27 December 2023 by Koavf
 * and
 * 08:34, 28 December 2023‎ by Koavf
 * may have been legitimate.
 * Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS,
 * User:Sbaio did not provide a substantive, informative explanation about the revert 09:49, 25 December 2023‎ (I still don't know what discussion they were pointing out) and did not provide an edit summary nor any explanation in the diff 07:40, 28 December 2023‎ that Koavf reverted. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ...may have been legitimate: One bold revert is fine. However, there's nothing "legitimate" in this case about the continuous reverts, especially given their history. —Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is more the case about unexplained or poorly explained reverts. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is more the case about unexplained or poorly explained reverts. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Maxim Masiutin (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user User:Zefr reverted 3 times a statement that berberin inhibits CYP3A4 without prior discussion on a talk page. Each time, I wrote a better version on my opinion, but still all 3 were reverted without prior discussion on a talk page, which I started. I also asked in a comment to request 3rd opinion rather than revert, but it didn't help. Please let me know whether my behavior was appropriate or not, and whether the behaviour of user User:Zefr was appropriate, I'd like to know for the future. Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which does not absolve Zefr of their responsibility to take it up on talk. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Togawa11 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Note that the edit Togawa11 is trying to impose appears to be a repeat of their previously reverted edits in October 2023. R Prazeres (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Visnu92 reported by User:Bennv123 (Result: Page protected)
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:


 * by User:Ymblanter for 1 week. Aoidh (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

User:European Union Fan reported by User:Ymblanter (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: The user started a talk page discussion themselves, but apparently are not interested in waiting

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

Comments:
 * The user has 12 edits at the moment.


 * Aoidh (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

User:31.124.97.149 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result:Blocked 72h)
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: [link]

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

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

Comments:

This has in fact been going on since []. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:Grorp (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Cambial Yellowing 4 times changed/reverted the heading from my talk page post of 01:12, 30 December 2023.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:36, 30 December 2023
 * 2) 19:11, 30 December 2023
 * 3) 19:15, 30 December 2023
 * 4) 19:33, 30 December 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Cambial Yellowing is already quite familiar with edit warring policy. They have been warned numerous times. They were given a 1-month block by in January 2023. Warned again in May 2023 by. Cambial has availed themselves of 3RRN several times. They were given a warning on 3RRN June 2022. followed by a partial block the following week. Their user talk page history is littered with even more warnings about edit warring, usually getting insta-deleted, and sometimes with sarcastic edit summaries.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In edit summary: "There is no reason to WP:REFACTOR my talk page edit", repeated twice more.

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

Comments:

Cambial Yellowing has a history of incivility and aggression towards me (as well as other editors, from what I read). I'm quite sure today's heading change is simply an attempt to goad or harass me following yesterday's content dispute over the use of the terms "tin cans" and "god/godlike" in the lead section which I tried to correct and they reverted me partially multiple times (perhaps too complex for its own 3RRN report, but I could try if deemed important). After I stopped trying to correct the article, Cambial followed up with around 20 more edits to the article including hyper-tagging the article, mostly my content, to which I didn't respond. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Only one of those is a revert. You have made three reverts on the article talk page, with the same edit summary. You provide no evidence of an illusory "history of incivility". Cambial — foliar❧ 21:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From WP:EDITWAR: The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  21:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Re Cambial's request to provide evidence of "history of incivility", I'll mention just one (because it's enough of a doozy and this isn't ANI): This discussion where Cambial attempted to force their viewpoint that a list-article wasn't notable. Myself and editor were involved in the resulting talk discussion, during which Cambial insulted me and the other editor, responded to one of my comments calling it "histrionics", completely ignored my contribution which included a dozen reliable sources, while continuing to repeatedly insult the other editor including "the exact practice you employ in your comments look like projection and are not acceptable conduct on this website" and "No doubt you’ll not allow that obvious a priori truth to worry you", after which the other editor walked away, and I quit discussing anything with Cambial and just expanded the article from a list-article to an article, effectively ending the discussion. This exchange is representative of many similar exchanges between Cambial and editors.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  22:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Claudiogostoso reported by User:Guilherme (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

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: [link]

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

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

Comments:

After trying to talk to him a lot of times, through the article talk page and directly to him, he did not responded and deleted the message that i sent to him.
 * Aoidh (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Psychologist Guy reported by User:DrJoHeiter (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1192813479&oldid=1192791572
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1192748089&oldid=1192726433
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1192720717&oldid=1192717503
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1192647845&oldid=1192633737
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1171587027&oldid=1171556580
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancel_Keys&diff=1165018367&oldid=1164989114

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:

Repeated reverts involving multiple users with no attempt to make consensus or engage in Talk page discussion and not engaging in good faith discussion. Discussion in Talk:Ancel_Keys. Seems to refuse to engage with the Third_opinion process where the matter was listed. Previously engaged in similar reverts for other editors on the same article. 13:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * User is adding pseudoscience to the article and is entirely destroying the lead. There is blatant disregard of WP:Fringe and WP:MEDRS here. "Repeated reverts involving multiple users" is inaccurate. The diff he listed here was from July 2023, that is irrelevant to this. It's only DrJoHeiter recently who is spamming the lead with unreliable low-carb authors. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The claim by the reverter that sources were of “unreliable low-carb authors” is wholly inaccurate and misleading, and I encourage the Administrators to investigate this in the edits and Talk page. In total I provided around a dozen peer-reviewed secondary publications in both the edits themselves and the Talk discussions which the reverter refused to engage with, not to mention criticism issued by Harvard University on their website. This sourcing is wholly within Wikipedia’s policies for medical articles. DrJoHeiter (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is at status quo ante condition; no administrative action necessary if no further reverts by either editor. @DrJoHeiter As the user initiating the bold changes, the onus is on you to get consensus for the changes. I suggest that you do not edit the article any further until a third opinion is offered on the article's talk page or there is other demonstration of consensus for a change, lest you be blocked for instigating the edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @C.Fred - I’m not making any further changes until a third opinion is offered. DrJoHeiter (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * per C.Fred above Aoidh (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Eauho reported by User:TDKR Chicago 101 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Created article talk page thread while edit warring was occuring
 * I created a talk page thread while the edit warring was ongoing and even suggested the user to provide additional opinions there rather reverting my edits. Reported user continued to edit war rather than to continue discussions on the talk page thread I created. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Comments:

For several months, Guillermo Lasso's 2023 image went undisputed, yet this user has been consistently edit warring to add, what he believes was a more appropriate image. In my revert notes, which you could see on the page's history, I have told the user to take it up to the talk page, I even created a discussion thread, but yet the user decided to edit war instead. I provided reasons as to why the 2023 image should remain on the infobox and that any additional opinions/suggestions should go to the talk page thread I created. This is my first time making an edit war report so please forgive me if I've goofed this up somehow. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 31 Dec 2023 (UTC)


 * In looking at the article, it's been semi-protected. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the prompt response! Should another edit war occur, which I noticed from another user (aside from the reported one) should occur, should I report back or wait for another user to intervene? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @TDKR Chicago 101 If the protection isn't working, I'd say to report back. —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User:HetmanWL reported by User:E-960 (Result:Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User HetmanWL is engaging in disruptive behavior and edit warring on the Poland page by inserting into the article's Infobox formation section unsourced and dubious claims of when Poland formally became a recognized state, thus upending longstanding content (note: in the latest edit user HetmanWL inserted a phony citation, which does not say anything about the claim that was added to the article). This new edit is contrary to reliable reference sources cited in the article and externally such as Encyclopedia Britannica. The contentious topics procedure applies to the Poland article, as the page is related to Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Also, user HetmanWL has been notified of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle process, however despite this user HetmanWL did not justify his edit by providing a reliable reference source to back up their view and instead has went back and re-added the dubious claim. As this article falls under the contentious topic procedure, I ask that user HetmanWL is sanctioned appropriately in order to prevent a further edit war from breaking out and that the original longstanding sourced material is restored. User HetmanWL is welcome to continue the discussion on the talk page, however the original longstanding version needs to stay in place. --E-960 (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Connii93 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Closed as a duplicate of the below, which has more comments)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Connii93 is editing BLPs and revising longstanding content based on their clear editorial bias (i.e., that Creole people should not be described as African-American) without proper sourcing. They are also doing this on Solange Knowles and Troian Bellisario. KyleJoan talk 12:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This user wants mixed race people (Louisiana Creoles) to identify only as black. He’s also reverting an unknown user (who doesn’t have an account edits back) 166.194.204.33 KyleJoan also has multiple warnings from Wikipedia while I don’t. KylaJoan shouldn’t be editing. With false information. Beyoncé has stated what her mother is. Connii93 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User:80.155.39.221 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "only consent by Jpatokal who is a paid editor. Needs your opinions and no sources provides any evidence."
 * 2)  "sources refers to Christian Meyer and you can't check in on a flight with a kunstlername. No clear sources states that Josh Cahill is the person in question. It also falls under WP:PRIVACY - ongoing discussion on talk page states no support for these changes including citizenship"
 * 3)  "as agreed per talk section to not include name and nationality"
 * 4)  "as agreed on talk section to not include the name"
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Request for comment on inclusion of "Aljoscha Wendholt" as name */ Reply"

Comments:

This page underwent full protection owing to this edit warring on 23 December. Edit warring resume immediatley upon unprotection. There appears to be a consensus for inclusion on the talk page. Also worth adding that there has been continual bad faith from this IP as they continually accuse other editors of being paid without evidence. — Czello (music) 10:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Worth noting there is irony in this as all this IP and others have no contributions outside this page (except for a few edits in 2020). RetroCosmos (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Easy call. IP has not only violated 3RR, they have in the process of doing so repeatedly removed material that there was a consensus to include, and compounded that with their puny efforts to gaslight the entire talk page into believing that there wasn't. Single-purpose devotion of recent edits is also noted. I will also be adding a CTOPS notice to the talk page given the recent need to full-protect the article; I have the feeling this will not end soon. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan reported by User:Connii93 (Result: Reporter 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)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

KyleJoan is editing BLPs and revising longstanding content based on their clear editorial bias. Louisiana Creoles are a mixture of different ethnic groups, which is proven fact. Louisiana Creoles were free & mixed race people. How does that fall under the African American category when they are mixed race? Solange Knowles is Beyoncé full blooded sister. Beyoncé's bio states how her mom is a Louisiana Creole. Why does Solange's bio say that her mom is an African American of Louisiana Creole descent? It makes no sense. Both share the same parents. Beyoncé has stated in her biography & songs that she is a Louisiana Creole. In her song Formation she talks about her parents. Here are the lyrics: "My daddy Alabama, Momma Louisiana You mix that negro with that Creole make a Texas bama." In her song Creole she talks about her being a part of the Louisiana Creole community and talks about her Creole features. Tina Knowles parents last names are Beyincé & Deréon. Both last names are French from her white ancestors. Tina Knowles parents were mixed race. Louisiana Creole is an ethnicity I don't know why KyleJoan wants mixed race people to identify as black so badly.

Troian Bellisario mom Deborah Pratt parents were Louisiana Creoles. This is a known fact. Deborah even stated it herself. This user has a problem with multiracial people identifying with what they are. KyleJoan only wants Louisiana Creoles to identify as black. Connii'93 talk 12:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Based on this declined submission, I believe WP:NOTHERE should be considered. At the very least, Connii93 should not be editing BLPs. KyleJoan talk 13:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think based on KyleJoan's repeated warning and reports against him. He shouldn't be editing BLPs. KylieJoan has multiple warnings from Wikipedia. While I have none. Also that was my first article and only article that I created. That's not a warning, like the many KyleJoan has. It was declined because it needs more information. Not enough yet and nothing is wrong with that. Connii93 (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This user: KyleJoan is reverting an unknown user who doesn't have an account (and goes by their IP address) 166.194.204.33 back. That also lets you know KyleJoan shouldn't be editing. Tina Knowles being an Louisiana Creole is very accurately sourced. He just doesn't want her to be one. He wants her to be African American. Connii93 (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, first of all, Louisiana Creole is not a racial designator, so there is no problem with Knowles actually being African-American (indeed, Louisiana Creoles can be of any racial group). However, neither the current sentence ("She is an African-American of Louisiana Creole heritage.") nor Connii93's "mixed-race" version is actually sourced, so it should either be sourced or it should be removed completely. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Louisiana Creole is an ethnicity. Tina Knowles is mixed race not African American. I disagree with you saying the mixed race part isn’t accurately sourced because Louisiana Creoles are mixed. But even when I only stated that she is of Louisiana Creole ancestry: “She is of Louisiana Creole descent.” KyleJoan & an unknown user kept on saying the following: “She is an African-American of Louisiana Creole heritage.” Connii93 (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an ethnic group but it's not a racial designator. Louisiana Creoles are not necessarily mixed-race (they can be, but they can be any other race as well).  Simply being of Creole heritage does not make someone mixed-race. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The NYT ref says the Knowles family has "deep Creole roots" and that Tina Knowles says she's "always been proud to be black". KyleJoan talk 13:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Connii93 is still edit warring on Troian Bellisario. Since that's acceptable, I'll refrain from this dispute entirely. KyleJoan talk 13:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm looking at that now as well. On this article, an actual "African-American" source would be better (after all, not all Black people are of African heritage). Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here’s Beyoncé talks about her heritage in a Vogue magazine: https://www.vogue.com/article/beyonce-september-issue-2018 Connii93 (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * KyleJoan is trying to use the outdated slave one drop rule for Louisiana Creoles. Just because someone has one drop of black in them doesn’t mean to erase their other parts & make them black. Connii93 (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked OK, I've seen enough. Connii93 is not using sources and in some cases is actively altering text to what sources do not say. KyleJoan - a source for that Knowles sentence would be good, though - it is after all a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Alexcasperphilly reported by User:Longestview (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user continually, and against consensus, attempts to add poorly-sourced edits to add candidates which do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the article, and then attempts to move the goalpost and change the requirements. The user in question continually accuses other editors of "projecting white supremacy" and censoring minority voices. I believe this user is acting in bad faith.
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Sapphorain reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: Blocked 72 hours, filed warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  December 31, 2023
 * 2)  December 31, 2023
 * 3)  December 31, 2023
 * 4)  January 1, 2024
 * 5)  January 1, 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This same conversation had already taken place before, with this same user, on another article (David de Pury), so it is the second time experiencing this conflict in regards to Swiss nationality in biographies with this editor. No consensus has been reached. - Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * . I have not blocked you, but very much considered it due to your part in the edit warring. When there's a disagreement that cannot be resolved, there are dispute resolution options available such as WP:3O or if 3O does not resolve the issue, Requests for comment (in this instance Requests for comment/Biographies). Please take this as a warning to not engage in edit wars yourself when it's known that there is a dispute like this. -  Aoidh (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

User:PlaneCrashKing1264 reported by User:Timtjtim (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User Talk
 * 2) JAL Talk Topic

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

Comments:

At the time of these edits, the consensus was that hull loss was an inappropriate term to use. That consensus has now changed, so the latest edits do not need to be reverted. However, the user still performed >3 reverts within 24 hours, across multiple disputed terms.

I don't *think* I performed >3 RR - here's the 3 I believe I've done, but if I did do a 4th I will accept a block as well of course.
 * 1) Diff 1
 * 2) Diff 2
 * 3) Diff 3

Timtjtim (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to take no action at this time, assuming there are no subsequent reverts by PCK. This is in large part due to them having made no reverts after replying to the closest thing to a 3RR warning I see on their page. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * per C.Fred. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

User:COLTashrif1499 reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1193344224 by Gotitbro (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1193343921 by Gotitbro (talk) It is evident that Atisa was member of Chandra Dynasty  of Samatata which comprises modern day Munshiganj and Comilla area there is no speculation at here about his early life"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1193343582 by Gotitbro (talk) Bikrampur is situated in at  present day Munshiganj it is not even speculated anymore"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1193343692 by Gotitbro (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1193292944 by Gotitbro (talk) Don't change without explanation"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1193292944 by Gotitbro (talk) Don't change without explanation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated appeals to start a Talk page discussions in edit summaries went unheeded, the editor (apparently new though, logged out IP editing/warring is visible in other articles) refuses to familiariaze himself with the given topic or even look at the contextual information within sources or the given article and has resorted battleground edit warring in enforcing edits on the given article. Gotitbro (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for making the concern. I am here to say, I did not involved warring in consent to make a battle edit but rather correct the source in proper way. In case of Atisa, he was indeed born in Bikrampur which is currently in modern day Bangladesh. I only corrected his early life source rather than touching other topics about him. Besides that, I acknowledge the policies and only make sure to observe and correct if needed of currently all the Bengalis I encounter, (if not from Bangladesh). I apologize if I did anything wrong and would not repeat the mistakes again. Regards COLTashrif1499 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your IP socking (Special:Contributions/142.113.138.93) is not helping your case here. Besides I have started a discussion at the talk page which you refused to do so repeatedly. Gotitbro (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As the edit was restored by the IP minutes after COLT promised to stop, I've started an SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/COLTashrif1499 — Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not my IP COLTashrif1499 (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * At Sockpuppet investigations/COLTashrif1499 I blocked the user for two weeks and the IP for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

User:DementiaGaming reported by User:33ABGirl (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1193379477 by Heathy94 (talk) Domestic"
 * 2)  "How many times do we have to do this before these idiots realize it's domestic"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1193251390 by Username1928374 (talk) No, it's not noteworthy. It's one person, and there are other Palestinian deaths who have not had a mention."
 * 4)  "Domestic"

Comments:

The editor persists in engaging in edit warring, disregarding previous warnings to address content disputes through the talk page at a declined RFPP request. Editor was warned regarding these edits by Firefangledfeathers. It appears that this editor is one of those exhibiting behavior akin to page ownership. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

User:HansoGalaxy reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) as IP
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1193389398 by Czello (talk) Talk page shows a clear support to not include nationality and name, how come this is constantly ignored. This doesn't seem contructive at all."
 * 3)  "None of the sources provided state Josh Cahill in the source and talk page shows clear support to not include nationality or name. Until now none of the 3 individuals have been able to produce any proof and ignore ongoing discussion."
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

User was reported here very recently for the exact same edit war and was warned User has been edit warring on this article for a couple of weeks now, against the consensus on the talk page. I'm bringing this to EWN before 3RR is violated as it's clear they aren't going to stop. They are almost certainly making logged out edits on (as well as others) based on the timing in order to circumvent 3RR. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3RR has in fact been violated. Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 17:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aye, it hadn’t been when I wrote that but now there's no doubt. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 17:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging as they dealt with this last time. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 16:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * – bradv  17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Tzv06887‎ reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

History of the user's reverts: 

History of edit warring / 3RR warnings:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Power set

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

Comments:

Tzv06887‎ is a WP:SPA who is edit-warring for including his Python program in Power set: 11 additions (without any summary) of their out-of-scope Python program, which was reverted by four different editors (including myself). Tzv06887‎ got three warnings on their talk page, to which they answered three times by blanking their talk page. No answer at Talk:Power set. This is not only a case of WP:edit warring, but the refusal of any discussion shows that this is also a case of WP:NOTHERE. D.Lazard (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * – bradv  17:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

User:EvanTPeoples reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2) : "Reinstated wonderment and rich rich tapestry that had been maliciously ravaged by a rogue (ie. lunatic) Wikier"
 * 3) : "Rid the ravagement of a malicious saboteur who, though they don't even live in Amherst, claim dictum. For shame, tsk tsk!"
 * 4)
 * 5) : "added truth to where there had been only D.R.I.V.E.L"

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:


 * – bradv  21:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Nardog reported by User:The Young Prussian (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "verification failed - pursue any of the WP:DR processes if you insist; besides UPSID is purposely not exhaustive so even if this interpretation is correct it's no way claiming that it's not found in any other language"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by The Young Prussian (talk): I've seen that. It says nothing about the articulation of /y/. And citations belong in article text, not in summaries"
 * 3)  "Reverted 2 edits by The Young Prussian (talk): Source? Ochoa Peralta (1984) doesn't count because she says 'alveopalatal', which is ambiguous"
 * 4)  "(no attestation)"
 * Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User:X2023X reported by User:33ABGirl (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* January */"
 * 2)  "/* January */ Kerman bombings' ibox & lead say 84, but its Bombings section says 95."
 * 3)  "2024 in Japan - a main year article isn't the place for an accident whose death toll is 5."
 * 4)  "/* January */ 2024 in South Korea: lone wolf attack in which no-one was killed; the only victim was never head of state/gov; no indication of international/gang/terrorist group involvement."

Comments:

The editor has consistently removed the same content that was added by multiple editors, over the past few days. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The concerns you've expressed about this editor on my talk page are one thing, but these edits just seem mostly like normal corrections (the victim count of the Kerman bombings has been revised downwards as double-counts have been accounted for). Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf, User:Konotopel reported by User:MonX94 (Result: Decline as resolved by editors)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The discussion took place on the user page of the user whose edits were reverted: User talk:Konotopel

Diff of ANEW notice posted to users' talk pages: 

Comments:

The argument going on is about Kiev/Kyiv spelling on the Ukrainian State page, where the Ukrainian transliteration is already used throughout the page. -MonX94 (talk) 05:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I very much realise I should have quit earlier, quite embarassing on my part. I will refrain from editing the page further. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also as far as the spelling goes, I was not aware it was being used in the rest of the article, I only ever saw it in relation to the edit being made. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit to previous, I have gone ahead and undone my last edit on the page to make the infobox comply with the rest of the article, effectively undoing any cause for further edit-warring. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, rather odd that you report only one of the two people involved in the edit-warring, while also not providing a courtesy edit-warring warning to either. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, my bad. Will do so in a moment. MonX94 (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean, a simple edit-warring warning to both involved would have defused the situation, removing the need to report anyone. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies. I am a bit new here.
 * In any case, I am glad the situation was resolved in the end. MonX94 (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Completely fine, wikipedia provides quite a lot of policy, guidelines and editing standards to learn about, and I dont think we can be expected to know it all. 😅 Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And honestly, I am sorry for causing this situation to begin with. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

as resolved by editors above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Michael Bednarek reported by User:Nick31629 (Result: Reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the talk between us

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

Comments:

The person of the voice is a my mother's great aunt, and I' knwow her better than him and journalists.
 * I'm glad Nick31629 brought the dispute here. Authority control records and music encyclopedias list the year of birth of Elena Mauti Nunziata as 1946. I mentioned Verifiability to Nick31629, and instead of providing a source for his proposed changes, he changed the YoB to 1944 three times without providing any sources. In addition, he undid many unrelated improvements in the process. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They weere related too, the facts that her self told me. Anyway give me your sources where the Authority control records and music encyclopedias list it, --Nick31629 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Special:Permalink/1193560301. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , you have an obvious WP:COI and should not be editing the article directly. If you have any proposals to make regarding the content of the article, you must make them on the article Talk page. If you persist in editing the article itself, you are warned that you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyway I knwo that my mother's great aunt is born in 1944. How do it? I don't want be blocked but this is true, .--Nick31629 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Editaddict reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Protected / Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "After posting for discussion in the Talk page and receiving no comments, in order to comply with WP:NPOV, I added this statement summarizing topics in the article and gave a third party citation."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1193596758 by Theroadislong (talk) The citation is a recording of the event described in the article."
 * 3)  "In the interest of WP:NPOV added a brief summary of the findings of a court and an expert that the group is not a cult that are already mentioned in the article."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* NPOV: Adding summary comment to the lead */ You have NO consensus for your edits"

Comments:

This follows previously reverted edits inserting similar material by the same editor, e.g. here. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I am new to the experience of being reverted so often. The reason for my reverts:
 * 1) I put the comment up on the Talk page. No discussion followed.
 * 2) I added the comment to the article to follow the WP:NPOV. Theroadislong and Cordless Larry were reverting my simple edit for WP:NPOV balance multiple times with no explanation of how this was wrong except they didn't want it there. How do I follow the WP policy with this kind of illogical opposition? Editaddict (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Explanations were provided in the discussion at User talk:Editaddict. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just saying you don’t agree is not sufficient explanation for denying an edit. I have asked multiple times for an explanation of how this edit does not fit the WP:NPOV and have never received a logical answer. Even your latest response shows you did not grasp my previous comments by your claiming the summary information was not in the article when I clearly stated I found this information in the article and therefore submitted an edit to the lead summary in order to follow the WP:NPOV. Just objecting to an edit is not a reason to not follow WP policy. 2601:18F:380:4880:B8CC:69BF:339:9787 (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked/Protected. I have blocked User:Editaddict from the article as they obviously have a problem with NPOV and COI. I have also blocked the IP.  I have protected the article to admin-only for a while, but am amenable to reducing that if there is a reasonable RFPP request. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . You might also be interested in Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if you haven't seen it, as we have at least one other editor with a COI who's been attempting to edit the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Hawkers994 reported by User:MustafaO (Result: Protected; malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

The editor persistently engaged in disruptive editing despite receiving multiple warnings from different editors,, ,

Notably, they had two prior blocks in October and November for disruptive edits on the same page and. Despite a final warning from a senior administrator just 2 weeks ago, explicitly instructing them to cease edit warring or face indefinite blocking, the editor resumed editing, thereby violating the aforementioned final warning and disregarding previous sanctions and repeated cautions.

Editing the Awdal page had to be temporarily restricted by an administrator due to an edit conflict he was directly engaged in Upon the expiration of this restriction, the editor resumed his engagement in an edit conflict with another user on the same page again, thereby violating the aforementioned final warning  and triggering a 2nd enforced restriction on the same page. Their actions demonstrate a lack of commitment to positive contributions. MustafaO (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)}}


 * You have been banned 2 times from Wikipedia for being a sock puppet and  for violations of using multiple accounts
 * The expiration date in the Awdal page has ended on 2nd of January and my edit was made on 4th January  by a Vandal user which was a revert. I have also left a warning on User:Wadamarow user page  which he did not reply at all. Hawkers994 (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The article was fully protected for two days by . This report is malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If the edit warring continues after the current protection I'm going to start laying down long term blocks. There's an rfc, of sorts, on the talk page right now about this content. Any watchers of this page are welcome to take part, as it desperately needs uninvolved participation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page per ARBHORN. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User:King Ayan Das reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks + warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1193889897 by Capitals00 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1193783149 by Capitals00 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1193719819 by Fowler&fowler (talk)"
 * 4)  ""Summarized conflicting perspectives on the Balakot airstrike: India claims elimination,  while Pakistan denies. Added clarity to the result section."
 * 5)  "Clarified language and improved precision in describing India's claims and Pakistan's denial regarding the Balakot airstrike and casualties"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Adding Contentious topics notice (ipa) (TW)"
 * 2) 04:08 6 January 2024 (UTC) (Note: Final edit warring warning) Capitals00 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Note: Discussion over same edits that happened few weeks ago) Capitals00 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

Multiple contentious edits after CT warning, one revert after edit-warring warning, refusal to discuss contentious edits on the talk page. First diffs are reverts of IB changes that had talk page consensus. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , this is why these pages are extended-confirmed protected, and this is why making a lot of small edits and then jumping into that area is generally a bad idea. I considered removing the extended-confirmed permission, but the case is not that clear yet; further disruption simply leads to an indefinite block from all pages or a topic ban, I guess. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Gnagyusa reported by User:RetroCosmos (Result: 72 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (going backwards in time)
 * 1) Last revert
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) First reverts  thru ; original construction  thru

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: warned re BLP RS on User_talk:Gnagyusa

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

Comments:


 * is also a revert (of Bishonen's edit immediately prior.) They've also re-added it again here. I started a talk discussion here and pinged them, which they ignored in favor of reverting again. --Aquillion (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit warring is ongoing  . That makes it 10 reverts in 24 hours. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller talk 13:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

User:154.176.154.163 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (initially), then to  (same thing but with different word)

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: (or see full discussion here)

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

Comments:

Edit-warring over removal of "satellite city" from stable version of article, despite explanation on talk page with reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Daniel Case. I'm just noting that they evaded the block through another IP shortly after, 154.176.39.212. R Prazeres (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * blocked from New Cairo now for a week. I will be extending the sitewide block on the original IP as well Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Original IP now blocked for 48 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Bigbrother999714 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Skye Blue */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on House of Black."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Several attempts made to communicate with this user on their talk page, but they are non-communicative. They have a history of disruptive editing. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 331dot (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Aruturo Van Kaigan reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1st introduced changes between 02:01, 11 December 2023 and 07:38, 11 December 2023, reverted by   on 09:56, 6 January 2024 with edut summary explanation.
 * 2) 2nd addition of disputed content, disputed content restored without consensus or discussion, rv by HistoryofIran
 * 3) Third addition of disputed content  rv by TimothyBlue
 * 4) Fourth addition:, rv
 * 5) Fifth addition:.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Permalink/1194109108 CTopics warning Special:Permalink/1194109108

Discussions: Special:Permalink/1194109108,

Comments:


 * User has also repeated PAs against other editors, Talk:Azerbaijani nationalism,
 * User is not ECP (~65 edits) editing in a GS area.
 * Request reviewing admin consider adding ECP on the page Azerbaijani nationalism
 * I think this is more than an edit war, the user is NOTHERE.
 * I think I have the diffs right above, but a look at the article history and user history will show problem.
 * Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''': User talk:Aruturo Van Kaigan
 * Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:''': User talk:Aruturo Van Kaigan

 // Timothy :: talk  08:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aruturo Van Kaigan is also randomly adding the "unreliable source" template to the cited WP:RS he disagrees with but has no problem adding a outdated and primary source from 1864 which he agrees with . This, combined with the rest of the diffs, looks like WP:TENDENTIOUS to me. Moreover, Aruturo Van Kaigan was already made aware that they were not ECP yet still went ahead and did all this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The user is definitely here to build encyclopedia in accordance with the wikipedia editing rules:
 * Rule 3. Be bold, but not reckless
 * Rule 6. Cite, cite, cite
 * Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weigh
 * If the 1864 British Royal Geography Society outlet is "disputed", so shall be all other unreliable sources written non-academically by such authors like Galichian, who is/was an engineer, and not a historian. The "unrealiable source" was not put random, but with a reason.
 * HistoryofIran together with TimothyBlue deleted the refernce to the 1864 document reference without trying to reach any consensus with me.
 * What is the topic?
 * The topic is whether the term "Azerbaijan" was used in attitude to the region of the contemporary Azerbaijan Republic before 1918 or not.
 * HistoryofIran wrote without stressing the authorsip that the term "Azerbaijan" was never used in the area of its current location before 1918, reffering to several papers, the main topic of which was not even relevant to the discussed issue.
 * I, in my turn, put the reference to the 1864 British Royal Geography society outlet that proved the usage of the term in relation towards the exact region long before 1918. What I got in response, is the erasion of my edits, as if a engineer Galichian's book stance written in the 21st century was more reliable than the 19th century British Geographer, who travelled to the region long before 1918. The existence of this and many other documents proved unreliability of the citations provided by HistoryofIran.
 * Unlike HistoryofIran and Timothy Blue, I did not erase their sentences, but added mine, which were vandalized with no respect either to me or the basic rules of Wikipedia.
 * On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.
 * Hence, I believe, that adding ECP would not improve the quality of the page, considering the upper-mentioned facts. I kindly ask the respectable administration to give me some time to reach 500 edits.
 * I also kindly ask to restrict HistoryofIran from vandalism, supporting the free nature of Wikipedia.
 * Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1799149
 * Respectfully yours, Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Sunriseshore reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Okay now I do clearly see the location of this complaint. I have been in communication over this issue, and I have also reported the accusing user over their own bad faith and 'fabrication' accusations. I and other editors have explained the article and provided sources, with detailed quotes. This has not satsified Borsoka which have unilaterally taken the task upon themselves to dismantle an article full of cited sources.
 * I have not found your report. Could you send me a direct link? Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course- that discussion can be found here.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Borsoka's_bad_faith_accusations Sunriseshore (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Having looked over the page history, talk page and the perhaps inevitable AN/I, it appears there is a real content issue here. But so far it has not reached the level of actionable edit warring. The best remedy is dispute resolution, preferably informally through the appropriate project talk pages, getting more editors involved to better reach an enforceable consensus, since these two are clearly not going to do it by themselves anytime soon. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Ash.david reported by User:Tol (Result: Now blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverting of this edit is politically inflammatory. Please do not change it again."
 * 1)  "Reverting of this edit is politically inflammatory. Please do not change it again."
 * 1)  "Reverting of this edit is politically inflammatory. Please do not change it again."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Adding uncited statements */ Reply"
 * 2) See existing discussion on User talk:Ash.david for awareness of edit warring policy, and other discussions linked at Talk:Fraser Island for further discussion and explanation of the edit warring policy

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent addition to § Toponymy */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Recent addition to § Toponymy */ Reply"
 * 3) See also other discussions linked at article talk for previous attempts at resolution

Comments:

Ash.david is edit-warring to include the unsourced statement that "many locals and tourists still refer to it as Fraser Island" (rather than its traditional, and now official, name of K'gari). Three different editors, including myself, have removed this unsourced claim. Ash.david has behaved rudely on talk pages, including at and elsewhere as linked in the article talk page discussion. Most recently, Ash.david added four inline citations to the statement, ostensibly supporting it, but none of the citations have any text supporting the claim. When I started a discussion on the talk page to centralise the multiple discussions on user talk pages that had been started, Ash.david reverted my new discussion without comment. Tol (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Ash.david has since added another inline citation that does not appear to support the statement anywhere. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 20:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * . I might have considered just a longer partial block from the article, but editor's defiant, tendentious and combative attitude (including a past promise to edit war) clearly calls for a sitewide block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case @Tol apologies if this is the wrong place to mention it, but I've just noticed that a brand new account (TyromannA) has made the exact same edit, then proceeded to edit Ash.david's talk page claiming that it is their own. This seems to be a fairly clear and deliberate circumvention of the block and continuation of the edit warring. Turnagra (talk) 05:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Turnagra, I opened your ping and saw your message right after I also noticed this behaviour and filed an SPI. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 06:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the new account indef. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Following the block expiring, Ash.david has again added the content to the article and deleted the talk page discussion three times (once after a self-revert) - see edits, , and . After I reverted one of the removals, they also sent me an email accusing me of, among other things, giving "an uneducation to children". Turnagra (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week this time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Claudiogostoso reported by User:Guilherme (Result: Blocked for a month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User inserting wrong redirects. He was blocked in the past week due to this exact same behaviour, and he refuses to answer when asked to and he deletes all the messages that I sent to him. Guilherme (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Edwinonus reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/*Quick note on Draft:Wild Furry Pawtality*/ Quick note"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Draft:Wild Furry Pawtality."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edwinonus has repeatedly removed an AfC decline template from their draft, in direct opposition to the comment alongside it asking users, Do not remove this line!. They have ignored multiple warnings on their user talk page not to do so and appear likely to continue removing this tag. Bsoyka (t &bull; c &bull; g) 02:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * from Draft:Wild Furry Pawtality. - Aoidh (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Megat Lanang reported by User:Gunkarta
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, then continued on edit wars on his latest edit

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: unresponsive to my invitation to address the problem in Klepon talk page also ignoring other user warning.  Gunkarta  talk 12:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Dingo175 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "He has not resigned with AEW as of edit"
 * 2)  "He is no longer signed to aew contract ended Jan 1 2024"
 * 1)  "He has not resigned with AEW as of edit"
 * 2)  "He is no longer signed to aew contract ended Jan 1 2024"
 * 1)  "He has not resigned with AEW as of edit"
 * 2)  "He is no longer signed to aew contract ended Jan 1 2024"
 * 1)  "He is no longer signed to aew contract ended Jan 1 2024"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."
 * 2)   "/* January 2024 */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring in a contentious topic area, persistent addition of unsourced material to a BLP, refusal to discuss on talk page, also making personal attacks  —  <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to add onto this my final revert was removing unambiguous vandalism from an unrelated user; wanted to point this out just in case it was misinterpreted as continuing to revert Dingo175. Their BLP violation still stands. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User:69.117.93.145 reported by User:Callitropsis (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is vandalism.  Proper edits were made according to Talk page.  Quit deleting accurate, relevant, unbiased, numerously sourced information on Michele."
 * 2)  "Making edits to comply with talk page discussions."
 * 3)  "minor edit"
 * 4)  "Removing un cited claims as no examples were given on talk page and this biased editor continues to vandalize."
 * 5)  "Continued vandalism revert.  Added additional sources.  Non-biased Sources now total 25."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1194653381 by Nikkimaria (talk). Vandalism is not OK in the name of cleanup!"
 * 7)  "fixed typo"
 * 8)  "adding clarification"
 * 1)  "fixed typo"
 * 2)  "adding clarification"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Michele Evans."
 * 2)   "/* January 2024 */ reply"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Michele Evans."
 * 4)   "/* January 2024 */ reply to 69.117.93.145"
 * 5)   "/* January 2024 */ add"

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

Comments:

See also WP:BLPN. Has been consistently accusing of vandalism on talk pages and in edit summaries. — Callitropsis🌲&#91;talk · contribs&#93; 07:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Almost the entirely of the article was being deleted. From what I have been told that is vandalism.  If it is not, I apologize but it's the information I had at the time.  I addressed Nikkimarias concerns once I was able to finally get them articulated.  My concerns of mass deletion keep being ignored however. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also can someone help me understand why Nikkimarias was not reported as the person who started the mass deletion? I'm confused why the initiating party was not reported and I was. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily, I take a cautious approach when the article reported is the subject of an AfD, as you would expect a lot more back and forth in that situation which some editors might regard as edit warring. But not here. More than the usual 24 hours for a first block for 3RR because the editor went to about five reverts, plus they have clearly demonstrated a tendentious mindset and battleground mentality as evidenced by their bludgeoning the AfD, and also have failed to assume good faith. They have thus earned themselves a break from the AfD and article for a while, but not so long that they will be unable to return to the former before it closes (although I'm not optimistic that the tide will suddenly and dramatically shift to keep). Hopefully—emphasis hopefully—they will be able to participate in a more civilized, collegial fashion and gracefully accept the very-likely deletion of the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

User:OlivierLLC reported by User:Sumanuil (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation"
 * 1)  "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation"
 * 1)  "Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* January 2024 */"
 * 2)   "/* January 2024 */"
 * 3)   "/* January 2024 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Can't seem to understand the difference between this and 20th Century Fox, and keeps "correcting" this to that.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 23:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked by .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Jackarrrr reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Page protected )
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:
 * 1)  "I thought you said that you dont care what image that people want to use? im confused..."
 * 2)  "galaxy inf"
 * 3)  "re"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1194946262 by Cerebral726 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1194337024 by Cerebral726 (talk) User Cerebral726 undid revision. Reason - selfish activity in reverting other users contributions"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1194337024 by Cerebral726 (talk) User Cerebral726 undid revision. Reason - selfish activity in reverting other users contributions"
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
 * 1)   "/* Lead image */ new section"

User also posted unnecessary warnings and accusations to the talk pages of here (including edit warring on FlightTime's talk page) and to myself here. Cerebral726 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"selfish activity in reverting other users contributions" That's not selfish. That's just how editing works. Thatoneguylol101 (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That was my reaction as well, haha Cerebral726 (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Full-protected for 24 hours, or when the talk page discussion reaches a consensus. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Carleas reported by User:ArvindPalaskar (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)
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: Non-stop edit warring against RfC that ended with "no consensus". ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) 14:32, 11 January 2024
 * 2) 15:48, 11 January 2024
 * 3) 16:57, 11 January 2024
 * 4) 18:35, 11 January 2024
 * 5) 14:30, 12 January 2024


 * from editing this article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Afghan.Records reported by User:Kanguole (Result: One-month AE block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (once),  (3 times)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:46, 12 January 2024
 * 2) 14:01, 12 January 2024‎
 * 3) 15:26, 12 January 2024‎
 * 4) 15:56, 12 January 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:36, 12 January 2024

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

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

Comments:

Kanguole 16:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * See also this ANI report of Afghan.Records, displaying more of their disruptive edits and attacks Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Moreover, they have already been blocked for edit warring before. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have logged this at CTOPS (first user sanction in the IPA topic area of the year!) since the user is aware of CTOPS and has been blocked for edit warring in the topic area within the last year. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User:177.240.49.208 reported by User:NebY (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Other parallels */"
 * 2)  "/* Other parallels */"
 * 3)  "/* Other parallels */"
 * 4)  "/* Other parallels */"
 * 5)  "/* Other parallels */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Dionysus."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Also deletions on 12 January 2024, of the same sourced content, from IPs,. NebY (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

and <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Darryl Kerrigan (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

René Lévesque
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

The King in Yellow
 * 1)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:René Lévesque;
 * 2) Talk:René Lévesque;
 * 3) Wikipedia_talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board

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

Comments:

This editor is currently subject an unrelated topic ban for gender and sexuality articles, and a general anti-Bludgeon restriction following edit-warring in March 2023. Following the close of an RfC and subsequent discussions at René Lévesque they have been engaging in similar behaviour, including violating WP:3RR with diffs 4-6. Similar behaviour seems to have occurred at The King in Yellow where they referred to other editors as self-appointed RoboCops or content high priests, while jumping into edit war there. They are generally disruptive. Sadly, I think they are generally here to try to make a better encyclopedia but the above is making it harder not easier to resolve content disputes and obtain consensus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The last edit to the article was on January 11. Before that, both users were edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * [ copied from AN ] I have warned all three users for edit warring. They are lucky not to have been blocked. As it stands, the Newimpartial version is the stable version, and any editor seeking to diverge from that should seek consensus on the talk page. However, that does not excuse Newimpartial's constant reverting. I also think Newimpartial's repeated edit summary that their version/edits are as per the RFC is simply not correct and somewhat misleading/mistaken - the RFC close at Talk:René Lévesque specifically states that "Just to be clear: the outcome of this RfC is that the word "Canadian" should remain but whether "Québécois" should follow it is not decided" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 21:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * GiantSnowman, the closer also said as part of the close, However, in this discussion I can't find a consensus that would let me choose between "Canadian" and "Canadian Québécois". In the circumstances I feel that should make the minimum possible edit, which is to insert "Canadian" before "Québécois". I'm choosing not to remove "Québécois" because I can't see a consensus to do so. The closer then edited the lead sentence to establish the version to which I reverted. So I don't see how I could be mistaken in identifying the version the RfC closer put in place - explaining their reasoning in the RfC close - as per the RfC. (Comment repeated from closed ANI filing.) Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:Grorp (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (see table)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

These six reverts fit in under 48 hours; the final 4 reverts (3b, 4b, 5b & 6b in pink) span under 25 hours—if you're short on time, just look at the last 4. I felt I should include the earlier reverts to put the series in perspective, especially showing the edit warring started right after Cambial Yellowing's edit-warring block expired. I apologize for the length, and hope this chronological table helps simplify/illustrate an edit warring series that would have been too complicated to follow if abbreviated to just diffs. I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

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

No specific warning given. Cambial had received a 72-hour block the prior week for edit warring with me on the talk page of a related article (see AN3 archive 477 § Cambial Yellowing). Cambial is quite familiar with 3RR and AN3, having participated here several times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Two threads on talk page; neither resolved:
 * 1)  (re content forks—edits 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b in table above)
 * 2)  (re failed verification—edits 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b in table above)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 01:57, 11 January 2024

Comments:

During 28–30 December 2023, Cambial edit warred with me on a related article, culminating in Cambial's 3RR violation on the talk page for which they were given a 72-hour block. Since that edit warring incident, I have made no further edits to that article. (I gave up.)

During Cambial's block period, I made only one edit to the Scientology article (the article of this 3RR report). In less than 24 hours after Cambial would have gotten off their 72-hour block, Cambial reverted my edit, and continued for the next three days almost exclusively edit warring or arguing on this article, and not stopping until after I ceased engaging.

I have been slowly working on this article over the last few months to remove duplicate material resulting from content forks, but during this period, everything I tried to do in this article has been reverted and reorganized by Cambial Yellowing (who keeps re-adding the duplicate material) until it is too complicated of a jumble to figure out how to fix it.

It wasn't until after I quit trying to work on the article, and abandoned the two talk page threads (which were not resolving), that I counted up the edits/reverts and subsequently drafted this report.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Cambial has been one very nasty individual at the Scientology articles. Mostly with Grorp plus I've had some exchanges with them. I'm not concerned about me but they are harassing away it's best editor (Grorp). There should be some type of warning given. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The discussion at the article's talk page (permanent section link) is full of unproductive discussion about user behavior, which doesn't belong there (focus on content; no meta). This isn't entirely 's fault; and  also raised conduct concerns there instead of leading by example. Describing an editor as "very nasty individual" and another as "best editor" is a highly subjective approach that turns pages into battlegrounds and is unsuitable for a noticeboard discussion.
 * So if a warning is needed, this here is one for all of you three. Now we can archive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your post.  I DID lead by example.  And if you are going to make implications about the conversations between me and  Cambial Yellowing, I would want to into that thoroughly.  One clarification when I said "nasty individual at the Scientology articles"   I was talking about things that happened at the article, not the individual and I should have made that clearer. I have high hopes that the more recent discussions will create a good situation there. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The discussions that you refer to came after the end of the edit warring. Scolding frustrated talk page participants for language that was used after the edit war and for not "leading by example" (an admin conduct requirement) is an incorrect and unfair assessment of causation or contribution of Cambial's edit warring behavior. Please retract your accusation.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  20:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While "leading by example" is a (stricter) conduct requirement for some usergroups, doing so is generally a good idea. WP:FOC and WP:TPG are universal; the former is policy, and they apply to your editing as well as anyone else's. The statements removed in Special:Diff/1194995281 shouldn't have been made on an article's talk page. I haven't made an assessment of "causation or contribution" to the edit warring and thus can't retract it; my "This" refers to the talk page being "full of unproductive discussion about user behavior", a state to which at least three users have contributed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I read "this isn't entirely Cambial Yellowing's fault" as an attempt at assigning contributory blame to Cambial's edit warring. If the 3RR report was simply filed too late to bother acting on, why even mention a discussion that happened afterwards?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand this interpretation, but as you have already described, that would have made no sense.
 * I've had a look at the discussion because, in response to 's decline, an accusation of harassment and nastiness was made, and because there was a request for a warning. So I checked if there had been harassment and a need for a warning. A one-sided warning didn't seem appropriate, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

User:69.122.41.240 reported by User:Willondon (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Aoidh (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:LingoSouthAsia reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

More than 24 hours by far, but long term edit warring (starting from 11 December 2023‎ till now). The user just reverted again, falsely claiming that two users (who previously reverted LingoSouthAsia and even openly opposed them in the talk page ) now suddenly "agree"  with LingoSouthAsia due to the mere fact that they didn't revert them again. Basically, LingoSouthAsia keeps removing the name "Lahnda", replacing it with "(Punjabi) variety language" or something similar for an extended period in the WP:CTOP topic Saraiki language. User has already been told of several rules such as WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWARRING, WP:COMMON NAME. Bonus; a random attack. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * HistoryofIran has broken 3R rule himself . He gives false assertions . I used tak page and new section and got concensus . I advised him that he may approach Dispute resolution for professional consultaion on the topic rather Admin notice Board but I think he lacks valid sources .   LingoSouthAsia (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You forgot to point out that the vast majority of my reverts there is of a user evading their block (WP:3RRNO), someone you was suspected of being related to due to the same disruptive edits . If you interpret the two users who disagreed with suddenly "agreeing" with you just for not reverting you again (I had the honor of that instead) and that talk page section as you gaining "consensus" (literally the opposite), then there are clear WP:CIR issues here. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 reported by User:Thecleanerand (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Repeatedly cites an incorrect source claiming that FITE was a rebrand/relaunch of Flipps that launched in May 2012 when every other cited source on the article contradicts this.
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter is a credible source that considers FITE to be a rebranding/relaunch of Flipps. The source that you cite is from FITE (now Triller TV) themselves. Triller seems to be attempting to rewrite history, also self-sources are often not considered to be credible on Wikipedia. Also many of the edits I made were to correct spelling and grammatical errors that you made. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Triller seems to be attempting to rewrite history
 * Baseless.
 * Even if that were true, Triller doesn't own PRNewswire - which is where the alternate version of the same press release from 2016 (differenced by the PRN version referring to the service as "FITE TV"). Are they trying to "rewrite history" too?
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter is a credible source, but they were simply wrong when it comes to the actual history of the app. Every other cited source on the page contradicts the citation from Wrestling Observer. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * User thecleanerand also does not respect the rulings of Wikipedia Administrators, previously writing in response to an attempt to get them to stop their disruptive editing:

"Kiss my fucking ass. This is not "the encyclopedia", it's a circle jerk of self-righteous, gatekeeping, page-hoarding pricks who think they can do whatever they want even against the site's own rules. I don't respect any of you brain-dead children, and whatever BS privileges you have mean nothing to me. [...] So unless you are an 'employee' of the non-profit WikiMedia Foundation, you and everyone else complaining on my talk page can eat shit for all I care. I won't be 'inappropriately combative', if the likes of you can avoid being insufferable cancer. Good day, and good fucking riddance." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thecleanerand#March_2022) Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Irrelevent. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you're going to play the high horse card, maybe don't wipe your own user talk page.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0&oldid=1195675659
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0&oldid=1195680023 Thecleanerand (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0&diff=next&oldid=1195680023 Thecleanerand (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also please do not make accusations about editors. I had planned to create an archive even prior to your false report of me today. I did not move the section you added to my talk page to the archive. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not irrelevant. Just demonstrating a pattern that you display when the editing process does not "go your way". You have a history of edit warring, making disruptive edits, and denigrating other editors. You have a history of disregarding calls from administrators to cease such activities - multiple examples are present on your talk page. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It IS irrelevant because it has NOTHING to with the fact that the citation was pain and simply wrong. Credible news websites can make mistakes.
 * Discrediting me doesn't help your case. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FITE's website is not deemed a credible source and you must find another source for the 2016 launch date rather than the 2012 date that I cited from the credible Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * PRNewswire is a creditable source. Every page on Wikipedia uses it. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not true.
 * "There is consensus that PR Newswire is generally unreliable, as press releases published on the site are not subject to editorial oversight. Some articles may be used for uncontroversial claims about the article's author." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The 2016 launch date of Triller TV is a controversial claim because the Wrestling Observer and other credible sources cite the 2012 date while (seemingly) Triller itself is attempting to rewrite history and claim a 2016 date (to separate Triller TV from the Flipps app). Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Wrestling Observer is a verified credible source on Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Reliable_sources) Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't have proof that Triller is "attempting to rewrite history".
 * I'm citing an official press release from 2016 that's been used by every news webite covering the launch.
 * You're citing an article from a verified credible source that plain-and-simply got the FITE's launch date wrong.
 * https://www.wrestlezone.com/news/672295-jim-ross-signs-on-as-spokesperson-and-executive-advisor-for-flipps-medias-fite-tv-complete-details Thecleanerand (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WrestleZone has been deemed an unreliable source on Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Unreliable_sources) You have to be able to back up your controversial claim without using unreliable sources and a literal press release. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been using a literal press release the entire time, straight from FITE themselves. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think the edit warring quite reaches the level of actionable at this time, especially since activity on the article seems to have died down with no edits in the last ~18 hours. I would highly suggest that the editors utilize the talk page to discuss the issue at Talk:Triller TV, and there are dispute resolution options such as WP:3O available if no consensus can be reached between the two editors on the content. - Aoidh (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no issue to discuss. They're wrong, I'm right.
 * They're hiding behind a credible source that plain-and-simply got their facts wrong, I'm using an official press release from the article's subject that contradicts said credible source.
 * They tried to discredit me by bringing up irrelevant drama while simultaneously blanking their talk page in an effort to vilify me, whereas I have nothing but civil this entire time.
 * The fact that they believe in some nonsense conspiracy theory about "rewriting history" (to say nothing of their own drama on the History of WWE article) is proof enough they are are in the wrong and need to be disciplined.
 * Instead, after making me wait all night, you're just going to do nothing about it? Thecleanerand (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocking an editor is done preventatively and not to "discipline" anyone (blocks are not punitive), and you both were edit warring. The edit warring policy specifically says that Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. If you are correct then it shouldn't be an issue to discuss it on the talk page (and I see you started a talk page discussion) or convince a third party as needed. - Aoidh (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Someonewhoisusinginternet reported by User:PickleAndPeanutFan (Result: Both blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:


 * . - Aoidh (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:PickleAndPeanutFan reported by User:Someonewhoisusinginternet (Result: Both blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * . Aoidh (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:125.165.209.176 reported by User:Buidhe (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15 Jan
 * 2) 15 Jan
 * 3) 16 Jan
 * 4) 16 Jan
 * 5) 17 Jan

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: Note that all of the user's edits are a violation of ARBPIA extended confirmed restrictions (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Numidea reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1196199015 by Skitash (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1196453582 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1196199015 by Skitash (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1196174224 by M.Bitton (talk) the table being obstructive is your personal opinion, you can make the table collapsible. Atlas is the king of Berbers read the source included with atlas"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1196149208 by M.Bitton (talk)  there is no need to remove the table of numidian kings, if you would like a smaller table you can either change size of the table or make a collapsable tag."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removed table of numidian kings */ Reply"

Comments:

As well as ignoring the consensus on the talk page and edit warring against two editors (on multiple articles), they are also casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Says the person who deleted contributions and with the aid of his close cooperates caused users to be blocked on several articles including
 * Algeria - Wikipedia
 * 13:51, 7 January 2024‎ M.Bitton
 * 17:19, 22 December 2023‎ M.Bitton
 * Numidia - Wikipedia
 * 18:03, 16 January 2024‎ M.Bitton ‎  30,581 bytes −3,273‎  Reverted 3 edits by Numidea (talk)
 * and others. everytime there is an edit war in these articles its always @M.Bitton at play with his friend Skitash . in both articles
 * In the talk page of Numidia - Wikipedia. Skitash  was called on to defend  M.Bitton  in the same way they did in the Algeria - Wikipedia page. Numidea (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Abo Yemen reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Abo Yemen appears to be gaming 1RR down to the minute.


 * 05:15, 16 January 2024
 * 05:15, 17 January 2024

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

Comments:

There is WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS talk page banner with 1RR warning.


 * I did this because i didn't want to undo the bot edit after it by restoring an old edit using a gadget. In the second revert im pretty sure that exactly 24 hours passed before i reverted him again  Abo Yemen  ✉ 
 * For now I am accepting the above explanation. It does seem like editors are trying to work this out on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Echo1Charlie reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: 24 hour partial block)
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 a lot to say They are edit waring, and this goes back to an edit they made a few days ago. also fond of leaving tit to tat messages. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I wasn't edit warring with the first one who removed. I hardly believe he knows this development as of now lol. It was this editor who kept removing cited content. I've only one request. Administrators who look into this please take a look at the said article's talk section and edit summary. All i want to say there is already there. Thanks Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * talk section Section to discuss Pak MP's statement Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Added after you started to revert without discussion and (per wp:brd it is down to you to get consensus for adding it (it is not long-standing content and was added here []) not for us to get it for removal. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I expect you to know that wikipedia is not built by overnight. Every articles are created and enriched by editors like me and you. It wasn't there from start doesnt means it shouldnt be there at all. Also i wasn't pushing a pov or OR but stating a pakistani parliamentarian's statement to their parliament, not to an election rally. Those from India, Britain (or Australia?) Knows the significance and seriousness of statements made in parliament. Simply you dont joke around in parliament. Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * . Partial block from 2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes. Ponyo bons mots 18:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

User:SP1CF reported by User:Thewikizoomer (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of Indian films of 2024."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of Indian films of 2024."

Comments:

The reported user has violated three-revert rule. Has been warned multiple times by other editors, post which they proceeded to make such edits. Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Same user engaged in edit warring in List of Telugu films of 2024.
 * Diffs:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Telugu_films_of_2024&diff=1196911339&oldid=1196836186
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Telugu_films_of_2024&diff=1196826917&oldid=1196826556
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Telugu_films_of_2024&diff=1196830190&oldid=1196828679
 * @SonaMani1 appears to be equally involved and warned. - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASonaMani1&diff=1196873540&oldid=1196491849 Thewikizoomer (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * along with who has also been blocked indefinitely. Both editors have gone well past 3RR on three articles two days in a row to the point that if they are to continue editing need to show an understanding of why such egregious edit warring, without a single comment discussing the matter on a talk page, is problematic. Aoidh (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
User:Ragnarvrollo is making unconstructive edits to B. K. Misra. He is not giving any valid reason for his edits, removing his article's educational qualifications. He has already been warned by an administrator. 2409:4043:6E81:EA50:0:0:B48B:C40D (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've already given a valid reason. As per Template:Infobox medical person - "List highest degree granting institution and graduation year, if known." By "highest degree granting institution", it means university or medical college. Besides, in other doctor's pages, the institutes of MBBS are also given.

It's customary to add the institutes of graduation & post-graduation. 'Too long' isn’t a valid reason to remove undergraduate institution from an infobox. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You said it yourself! "Highest degrees". His highest degrees are MCh and PDC, which were awarded by AIIMS Delhi and University of Edinburgh. 2409:4043:6E81:EA50:0:0:B48B:C40D (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 'Highest degree' doesn't mean only postgraduate degrees, it include graduate degrees too. That's why undergraduate universities are also added in 'alma mater' section. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you stupid or something? Do you really don't know know the meaning of Highest? 2409:4043:6E81:EA50:0:0:B48B:C40D (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

User:SoilnRock reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again: Read what I wrote and you should come to the conclusion that you repeatedly reverting my edits and starting an edit-war is misbehaviour on your part."
 * 2)  "There i absolutely nothing to critisize about my edit so stop reverting it need- and senselessly and instead contribute something constructive."
 * 3)  "So what's your reasomn this time? WHAT IS YOUR AIM HERE? Why do you behave like an idiot?"
 * 4)  "YOU are contributing NOTHING constructive. YOU started this war by behaving like a jerk. Why are you like this? What are you trying to accomplish?"
 * 5)  "/* Plot */"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1196934054 by Masem (talk)"
 * 7)  "There is exactly one happy ending and you honestly need a SOURCE for this being described as *probably* the best ending? You prefer a versin of this site which is missing the crucial info about the fourth ending over my version? Again: what is wrong with you?"
 * 8)  "What is wring with you??? I'm writing "probably considered", is that so hard to understand? Also the info about the fourth ending is completely missing and it is the *ONLY* happy ending in the game!"
 * 9)  "No, this is NOT a subjective opinion! Could you PLEASE consider getting proper information before reverting perfectly correct edits?"
 * 10)  "What is not to understand about my sentence? There actually is a fourth ending, why would you remove that entry??"
 * 1)  "No, this is NOT a subjective opinion! Could you PLEASE consider getting proper information before reverting perfectly correct edits?"
 * 2)  "What is not to understand about my sentence? There actually is a fourth ending, why would you remove that entry??"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

User:47.153.247.29 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There's no evidence of this and it's an attempt by a local activist to advertise and promote her Woman's Hike."
 * 2)  "There's no evidence of this name and its an attempt by a local activist to promote their Women's hike"
 * 3)  "There's no documentation of this narrative, its Jolie Varla attempt to make herself famous"
 * 4)  "There's no documentation that the Paiute named this trail, it's Jolie Varla who invented this name and is attempting to ascribe Paiute names to features that didn't involve the Paiute."
 * 1)  "There's no documentation of this narrative, its Jolie Varla attempt to make herself famous"
 * 2)  "There's no documentation that the Paiute named this trail, it's Jolie Varla who invented this name and is attempting to ascribe Paiute names to features that didn't involve the Paiute."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* No documentation? */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP has repeatedly tried to remove sourced statements about a Paiute name, where they believe it's one person's made up name. I tried to tell them that there were multiple sources on their talk page, in vain.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 13:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * More reverts — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 17:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster reported by User:Imalbornoz (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user has reverted 4 times in a little bit over 24 hours. The first time they reverted the whole edit, but then focused in a part about they have been topic banned several times before: the fact that almost the whole population of Gibraltar left the town when it was captured in 1704. They tried to remove this fact from the text several times along the years, and now is trying to remove it from the lead, edit warring.--Imalbornoz (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * And you've reverted four times in a rather shorter time period, haven't you?   .  Note also that the claimed warning is stretching the concept somewhat beyond what one would normally expect from a 3RR warning.


 * FTR, it is true that Imalbornoz has spent the last 17 years pushing his POV on Gibraltar, but that's not a point for this board. Nor is the comment about the topic ban (singular), which was rescinded in 2012 and applied to Imalbornoz as much as WCM. Kahastok talk 20:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the history and the talk discussion, it seems pretty clear that Imalbornoz, while his argument that the intro needs more detail is not without merit, is editing against consensus and MOS:LEADLENGTH when he restores his preferred version. WCM stopped at the right point when advised he was there. I believe further discussion on the talk page would be productive. Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Patriotickurdish reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Brand new user and this is the first thing they do; edit warring and pov pushing. They haven't paid single attention to the reverts and warnings they've received. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 8th revert Aintabli (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * + Sockpuppetry Aintabli (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe is also worth a look, because there is obvious sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on. Aintabli (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ – thanks, . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:PickleAndPeanutFan reported by User:Someonewhoisusinginternet (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: They were temporarily blocked for edit-warring, today they have reverted the same content without reaching consequences. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:SeriousHist reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Indefinitely blocked; reporter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

November
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

January

2nd 8th 19th-20th
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 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:

Long term edit warrior. Reverted by these three users in November. Accused me of sockpuppetry and "history" of vandalism. Left for over a month after being warned for WP:3RR before returning in Jan to pick things up. Four reverts almost within 24 hours.

Aside from edit warring, there's a host of NPA IDHT and probably COMPETENCE issues: Ranting in talk about good faith and bad faith (after accusing me of socking), insistence on being the victim of SOCK or MEAT when reverted, never made a sock or meat report after being asked to rather than continue with the accusations and continued to accuse me of sock/meat as their defense , insistence on "consensus" after being reverted by multiple users. Does not understand WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. After an explanation of SYNTH and request for them to stop their accusations, they shifted to sock accusation and decided that talking to me is useless. More diffs of reluctance to recognize OR problems. Misrepresented sources here by expanding the cited page numbers even though the added content cannot be found in them. Deflection and failure to provide a supporting quotation for their content when requested. They also seem to have trouble with grammar as well, making it hard to read their arguments, which are circular in any case. Qiushufang (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Their most recent revert still suffers from the OR and COMPETENCE issues mentioned above. The entire sentence, which they claim is a direct quotation, has no quotation marks, is grammatically incorrect (refers to Europe as a person and has a space before the period), and is not found anywhere in the source. The user constantly makes claims that are just not real. Qiushufang (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked SeriousHist., you have been edit-warring as well. Consider yourself warned that a repeat of this behavior may result in a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

User:115.42.13.190 reported by User:Leftregister (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reference re flags added."
 * 2)  "No reference to support status of flag."
 * 3)  "/* Banner, flag and pennants */Subject of sentence and paragraph move to beginning."
 * 4)  "/* Banner, flag and pennants */Rephrased to past tense."
 * 5)  "No reference to support status of flag."
 * 1)  "No reference to support status of flag."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP account removed a significant aspect of the page, by removing the flag from the infobox, without any consultation from the talk page or by providing any sources to support his edit. He has then continued to revert back to his version and has refused to communicate in the talk page or make compromises Leftregister (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Truthout88 reported by User:ARandomName123 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Art Canada Institute is not based at Massey College as confirmed by Massey College; all the controveries regarding Sara Angel are documented in the newspaper or online publications which have been referenced."
 * 2)  "The update was correct with all citations and references included."
 * 1)  "The update was correct with all citations and references included."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Art Canada Institute */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* NPOV and Undue Weight Concerns - January 2024 */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Art Canada Institute */ new section"

Comments:

The user has repeatedly tried to introduce information that (I believe) is tangentially related to the article subject. The user has also accused me of being related to the article in question, and whitewashing the page because of that. There were also some copyright violations introduced. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

User:StarryNightSky11 and User:PeeJay reported by User:Iggy the Swan (Result: Both blocked 1 week)
Page:

Users being reported: and

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

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

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

Comments:

Both PeeJay and StarryNightSky11 are experienced users, but they are both editing very quickly on piping/unpiping the New York City FC link on Frank Lampard. As seen in the "Diffs of the user's reverts:" part, this was clearly done in less than an hour. I seem to remember edit warring by one of these users has been edit warring before so PeeJay should have been familiar with this policy. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? I reported the situation at WT:FOOTY for others to weigh in on, and you thought it would be appropriate to report me for this? I'm seeking outside input for 3RR relief. If I exceeded three reverts, so what? I've stopped now. – PeeJay 22:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I didn't notice your edit on the page until now and I started doing this before 22:19 without watching the talk page at any point. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bit late now, I'd rather get some input on the actual topic rather than talking about who's in the wrong. – PeeJay 22:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * . Both have violated WP:3RR on Frank Lampard and Ineos and were edit warring on Old Trafford (area) and a few other articles and have previous blocks for edit warring. Aoidh (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

User:2409:40F0:9:D14E:90B3:FF:FE11:D1A4 reported by User:Thewikizoomer (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Refrain from edit warring

Comments:

Reported IP and a user were involved in edit warring. Three revert rule violated. Reporting both 2409:40F0:9:D14E:90B3:FF:FE11:D1A4, Pickersgill-Cunliffe Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither the IP nor Pickersgill-Cunliffe have violated WP:3RR, which is defined by making more than three reverts within 24 hours, and neither made any further reverts after you placed the uw-3rr template on their talk pages. The IP's first edit doesn't appear to be a revert (likely why you left the "Previous version reverted to" field blank) meaning they made two reverts and while Pickersgill-Cunliffe made three reverts, they were reverting a unsourced change to a BLP subject's name, apparently to the name of the article subject's sister, though I highly doubt either one is commonly known as W% Brother Anil Kumar as indicated in this edit. The IP should not continue, but given that they only edited for 9 minutes about 12 hours ago I'm not sure any action is needed there at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Jadid basmach reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
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: (no response from Jadid basmach)

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

Comments:

User engages in blatant historical falsification, trying to paint all these entities as "Uzbek" without any WP:RS, when their article says something else (eg Kara-Khanid Khanate) and the fact that Uzbek was not an ethnonym till something like the modern times. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Bsskchaitanya reported by User:The Herald (Result: Article fully protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The original name of Babi masjid in the historical documents until the mid-twentieth century is mentioned and also a brief history about the belief of Hindus that a mosque being built on a temple related to the birthplace of Rama was added with reference."
 * 2)  "Mention of prominent ASI officer and acheologist K K Mohammed about the validity of ASI report and previous excavations was added."
 * 3)  "Information regarding Supreme court's acceptance of ASI report and also it two vital conclusions, namely, underlying structure being non-islamic in nature and strong evidence for the Hindus' belief about the disputed site being birthplace of Rama are added with reference."
 * 4)  "Information that Ayodhya being one the seven holy cities to Hindus as per their holy scriptures is added along with reference. This piece of information is neceassary to make readers understand why Hindus had pre-eminent important to Ayodhya since ages."
 * 5)  "The word hypothized as been removed in order to be sync with the Bethlehem article which don't use the same when mentioning it as birth place of Jesus of Nazereth. Refer to WP:RNPOV."
 * 6)  "Replaced the world 'hypothized' with reference based on scripture, i.e. Valmiki Ramayana. A refence from recent new article has been added."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ram Mandir."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ram Mandir."

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

Comments:

Editwarring and repeated addition of POV statements without gaining proper consensus in thw talk page of a CTOPS article. I have reverted the edits but stopped after reaching 3RR myself. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have stopped reverting after the initial warning by 'The Helard' and tried to explain to this editor about suggesting the replacement of the word hypothesized with another proper alternative with a better neutral point of view perspective. My comments can be found in the talk page of Ram Mandir's article. This editor 'The Helard' has not replied fully to those comments. I wish other editors also provided their valuable comments to enrich that article. Apart from that, I have made some edits related to the Supreme court of India's verdict of the ASI report's validity, non-Islamic nature of the structure beneath the destroyed mosque and also strong evidence about belief of Hindus that the disputed site was birthplace of Rama. There edits I have not done using any edit reversion. I also tried to edit the lede with a mention about the significance of Ayodhya among hindus that it is among sapta puri (seven sacred cities). I tried to mention Garuda Purana as reference and got notified by another editor about citing primary source. I agree it is better to go for secondary sources. So, accordingly I try to put up a message in the talk page about mention of Ayodhya as among sapta puri. My intention was to put un-biased information validated by proper sources to the best of my knowledge and respecting the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have no malefide intention while making these edits except to provide valid information that from proper sources. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Since the page is fully protected, this is moot. note that you can breach 3RR even if the reverts are for different edits. And, re-adding content with a new citation after being reverted is counted as a revert for 3RR purposes. Given the high number of edits on that page it is difficult to figure out if you've actually violated 3RR or not but do keep this in mind going forward. RegentsPark (comment) 17:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi RegentsPark,
 * Thank you very much for clarification. I thought 3RR applies only if I actually revert aa previous edit using revert option. Now, I got clarity. I would like my edits to be reviewed and incase If I have blatantly violated the Wikipedia guidelines then I prefer to be judged accordingly. My only intention was to provide information in that article to separate the political discourse around that article from the religious significance Ayodhya had among Hindus since many centuries. Also, the original name of mosque (masjid-i-janmasthan) which was mentioned in historical Islamic sources was missing in that article and I wishes to add information about that. Once again thanks for your concern to uphold the ideals of Wikipedia and your empathy towards another fellow editor. Have a great day ahead. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

User:TylerBurden reported by User:FalconJackson (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Dude is engaging in an extremely petty edit war over which surname of Felix Kjellberg's wife is displayed in the infobox. I am trying to change it to her maiden name in line with all if not the vast majority of infoboxes of men married to women with known maiden names on Wikipedia, and he keeps reverting it, also simultaneously reverting a wording tweak further down the article, which is definitely unnecessary. The user has ironically threatened me on my user talk page with an edit war warning despite the fact that I haven't done anything wrong. Help requested. - FalconJackson (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are required to notify of this report on their Talk page, as it states at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate you decided to escalate to this point, since neither of us have broken the 3RR, but you're engaging in clear edit warring. If an edit you make is disputed, it's on you to gain consensus per WP:ONUS. All you have done is repeatedly claim that you are right while failing to deliver the links backing up your claims of "site wide convention", which was asked of you from the very beginning. Since you are refusing to start a civil discussion on the talk page, I will do so, I recommend you avoid attempting to brute force your changes further in the meantime. This isn't how you handle content disputes. TylerBurden (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're both edit warring. I suggest that in lieu of continuing to revert to your version (which is edit warring) that you follow WP:BRD and get a consensus for the change you're proposing before reinserting the change into the article. A discussion has already been started at Talk:PewDiePie and there are dispute resolution options such as WP:3O if outside input is needed to resolve the dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * per above. Aoidh (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:185.40.211.27 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Pages protected)
Pages:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts: On Horse Hare:
 * 1) 14:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) 07:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) 14:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) 08:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) 14:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: On User talk:178.135.20.159

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (none / N/A)

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

Comments:

Hi. This user is engaged in long-term edit-warring against the Wikipedia manual of style (particularly overlinking). This is happening across numerous articles, not just one. Horse Hare is where the edit warring is most evident however. The user has been warned many, many times about their MOS violations on their numerous talk pages, such as User talk:185.40.211.27 and User talk:178.135.15.27. By now, numerous editors such as me, ToadetteEdit, Untamed1910, Waxworker and Geraldo Perez have reverted their edits and/or issued warnings. Some of the pages such as Horse Hare and Roman Legion-Hare have been protected several times for this persistent disruption issue, and several IP addresses have been blocked as well, such as 80.79.145.77, 80.79.145.30 and 77.246.64.0/18. However, to this day, despite all these messages and previous administrative actions, they have refused to respond to or address these issues at all, and continue to restore the same problematic MOS-violating edits on the articles. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  00:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Update: user made a revert on Emancipation (2022 film), same overlinking problem, still no communication from them. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  09:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All, for varying lengths of time depending on how long the disruption had gone on. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Vanezi Astghik reported by User:TimothyBlue (Result: No violation, but will put article on 1RR)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, after discussion cotnent restored with the full quote added

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Vanezi Astghik removes sourced content and reference:
 * 2)  rm rv per WP:BRD. discussion started.
 * 3)  content removed again without consensus.
 * 4)  Content restored per discussions and feedback from multiple editors Talk:Stepanakert,, , Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Full quote was added per discussion.
 * 5)  again removes the material they disagree with.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * User talk:Vanezi Astghik
 * "The contentious topics procedure applies to this page." talk page notice is present.
 * DS/notice on user talk page User talk:Vanezi Astghik on user talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Stepanakert
 * NPOV board: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

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

Comments
 * Content should be reverted to, version with the full quote added per talk page discussion.

 // Timothy :: talk  00:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

In conclusion, the user seems to be trigger-happy by threats / now reporting me, and adds quotes to the lead under pretext of "stable version" that was never in the article to be stable. The user ignores my content related arguments, doesn't reply to me, and when I follow up on the talk discussion, I find myself being reported. How about we discuss content and refute each other’s arguments if you disagree with me and think you have stronger arguments? So far, I've tried to do exactly that with Timothy and anyone watching the article talk/history are free to see that. Vanezi (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why user Timothy reported me for edit-warring, the user made 2 reverts while I made one. These are my diffs, it's public to see in article revision history. I made a whopping 3 edits in the article one of which was the revert. Here's the summary, feel free to check/see for yourself:
 * 1) I made an edit removing a sentence from the lead which I explained why in the edit summary,
 * 2) User Timothy reverts me and opens a discussion,
 * 3) I made a revert and make 2 replies in the discussion ,
 * 4) User Timothy, without replying to me, reverts again + adds an undue/pov quote in the lead of all places that was never a "stable version" as claimed in their edit summary, the quote was never even in the article to be "stable". Only after this, Timothy proceeds to post a reply without actually addressing my arguments of any of my previous 2 comments and with threats against me instead ,
 * 5) I reply to Timothy again, explaining that adding/squeezing a quote in the lead was never a stable version and that it has NPOV and MOS:LEADLENGTH issues,
 * 6) Timothy doesn't reply to me, instead another user does, suggesting to move the quote to a reference in order to address the issues, and I follow up on the comment and reply on talk confirming my edit + discussing the other statement which was the start of dispute (it's still in the article after being restored by Timothy),
 * 7) Timothy, instead of discussing content or addressing my arguments, once again threatens me and proceeds to report me.


 * Reply: Multiple editors have replied to you. Three editors have disagreed with your changes,,, and three times, , ,  you have removed the content you don't like.  // Timothy :: talk  04:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you just linking diffs with no chronology and why you haven't further discussed content on talk if you have stronger arguments for your case? You may not know, but just commenting once or twice and abandoning the discussion, or not making content related arguments and just threatening with reports, doesn't mean consensus if one simply doesn’t engage or answer comments/arguments with stronger policy based rationale. I had made several comments doing exactly the latter, , ,.
 * Your linked talk comments don't even correspond to the article edits: "and three times, [34 ], [35 ], [36 ] you have removed the content you don't like." – What does this suppose to mean? For instance, did you not notice that during the first 2 diffs you linked, there wasn't even a talk discussion for anyone to disagree? And only the second diff was a revert. Lastly, in regard to the third diff, it came after you reverted and restored the sentence (which I still haven't removed btw and I’m actually trying to get you to engage in the content discussion) + you also added a pov blockquote to the lead claiming it to be "stable version" when it was ‘’never’’ even in the article let alone the lead . Same quote that was suggested to be put in a reference if you've paid attention to the most recent content discussion (and this is only what I did following that discussion), instead of threatening me with reports, . Vanezi (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The report is also sloppily formed, with Timothy's's diffs meant to prove edit warring instead being those of his reversions of Vanezi. However, as the admin who put this article on ECP a few months ago, it is evident now that in light of recent events we need more than that. So I will be putting the article on 1RR as a CTOPS action. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The report is also sloppily formed, with Timothy's's diffs meant to prove edit warring instead being those of his reversions of Vanezi. However, as the admin who put this article on ECP a few months ago, it is evident now that in light of recent events we need more than that. So I will be putting the article on 1RR as a CTOPS action. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Muscab30, User:Dolf133 reported by User:Freetrashbox (Result: Muscab blocked for two weeks)
Page:Bosaso

User being reported: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Dolf133: Muscab30:
 * 1)  22 min
 * 2)  27 min
 * 3)  4 min
 * 4)  18 min
 * 1)  22 min
 * 2)  10 min
 * 3)  2 min
 * 4)  5 hrs 53 min

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Both editors have been edit-warring shamelessly (I lost count). I've blocked Dolf133 as a sock, but that doesn't justify Muscab30's behavior. For the moment, I'm not taking any action against Muscab30 and will let another administrator decide what's best.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hoo-boy ... this was one for the books! I have never seen such a longer revert war. I do not think Muscab can be so easily excused as he's an extended-confirmed user. And he and Dolf continued to edit war while discussing on the talk page ... another big no-no. And this was in a contentious topic area (ARBHORN) to boot. However, at the same time ... Muscab wasn't aware of CTOPS (until just after I blocked him) and he did report Dolf to AIV (albeit far later than he should have). Nor did the talk page have a CTOPS notification. So, factoring that in, I have levied a two-week block as a regular administrative action. That said, this is as good a reminder of why we have CTOPS as anything else. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User: reported by User:185.243.209.67 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Hello I want to report Qiushufang for continual edit warring in spite of being warned many times:

His talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qiushufang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qiushufang/Archive_2

His most recent reverts

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penghu&diff=prev&oldid=1198324949 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592%E2%80%931598)&diff=prev&oldid=1198324436 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592%E2%80%931598)&diff=prev&oldid=1198150214 185.243.209.67 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Ajithkumar23 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Disruptive to the core, in adding his content he replaces other content, that too crudely. I'm not even sure his source is entirely correct or up-to-date. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  10:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This diff does not show an edit warring notice of any kind, there's no diff of an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page because there has been no attempt to do so, and this report only shows a single diff (though I did look through the article history despite this). in the future when creating a report here, please take the time to fill out the report fully, and please also stop mislabelling edits as vandalism.  Aoidh (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:91.186.244.53 reported by User:Aintabli (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1198606209 by Aintabli (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1198605217 by Aintabli (talk)"
 * 3)  "Doesn't anyone want to see what has been added to the article??? There are things that the IP address removed and I restored them and corrected the article. What is this blind repression?"
 * 4)  "I told (Oh, the same existing sources confirm my words, but there are those who removed half of what was said and put in the part they wanted. Read before using this oppressive method without having some culture.)Look at the edits and read the article to know that I relate it, and you are the one doing the sabotage because you do not want to tire yourself and read."
 * 5)  "Oh, the same existing sources confirm my words, but there are those who removed half of what was said and put in the part they wanted. Read before using this oppressive method without having some culture."
 * 1)  "Oh, the same existing sources confirm my words, but there are those who removed half of what was said and put in the part they wanted. Read before using this oppressive method without having some culture."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Another revert by the IP. Aintabli (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:66.231.18.130 reported by User:Schazjmd (Result: Blocked for 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reverted vandalism"
 * 2)  "added context"
 * 3)  "/* Use of private funding for deployment */"
 * 4)  "/* Use of private funding for deployment */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP just came off a previous block for edit-warring. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have blocked them for a month. PhilKnight (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Truthforsocialgood reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:04
 * 2)  "/* Victorinox in North America */"
 * 3)  "/* Victorinox Abuse Case */"
 * 4)  "/* Victorinox in North America */"
 * 1)  "/* Victorinox in North America */"
 * 2)  "/* Victorinox Abuse Case */"
 * 3)  "/* Victorinox in North America */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Fair bit of not-AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND on this account's talk page too. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely for legal threat. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with that. Thanks! AntiDionysius (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Nabukednezar03 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Nabukednezar03 has chosen to not use the article talk pages.

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

Comments:

Nabukednezar03 has been edit warring over multiple articles(Battle of Rovine, Battle of Mohacs) along with personal attacks and casting asperions concerning other editors in their edit summaries. Said editor has chosen not to use the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dude please, user Keremarda has repeatedly tried to contact you in the 'discussion' section. He even invited you to examine the sources he was referencing by saying 'if you don't believe me, look for yourself'. But each time you refused and deleted all his edits. Now you are trying to drag the discussion down as if this can be resolved on the discussion page. You have formed a group here and you allow whatever historical narrative you like to be written. You accuse those who deviate from this concept of making personal attacks. Nabukednezar03 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The number you gave about the Ottoman army in the Battle of Rovine has no source. But there are two sources for the army number I gave. Now, you, who write without sources, comply with the rules of this page, but I do not huh :d? Nabukednezar03 (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * These latest accusations by Nabukednezar03; "deleted all his edits", "formed a group here", "accuse those who deviate from this concept of making personal attacks", lead me to believe Nabukednezar03 is not here to build a community encyclopedia.
 * P.S. For the reviewing admin, I haven't edited the Battle of Rovine since:
 * 12:41, 30 May 2022 (diff | hist) . . (-200) . . Battle of Rovine --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Easy call based on the user not only having exceeded three reverts, but failing to open discussion on the talk page, rude and insulting edit summaries like this and this, similar behavior on other articles like Battle of Rovine per edit history, failure to assume good faith as demonstrated here, and the generally tendentious battleground mentality all this evinces. On top of that, the user has done this in a contentious topic area (Eastern Europe and the Balkans), giving us yet another demonstration as to why we have that. They do not seem to be aware of this, and this is a first offense, so I am leaving it a regular administrative action. But I have added a CTOPS notice to the article talk page, and if they have not been made aware of CTOPS, they will be. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Addendum: An AN/I thread has been opened with strong evidence this user is a sock of an account indeffed last year for similar edits and editing; it seems that before this block expires it may follow in those footsteps. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

User:67.188.18.232 reported by User:Sumanuil (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* January 2024 */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* January 2024 */"
 * 3)   "/* January 2024 */"
 * 4)   "/* January 2024 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Insists he's moved teams, refuses to provide a source other than a plain external link to Twitter.  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 06:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Most recent revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First edit, being bold and neglecting to read last month's RFCs
 * 2) Second edit, tagging the same text while discussion already in progress.
 * 3) Third edit, restoring edit tags
 * 4) Fourth edit, restoring edit tags yet again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here. Per WP:DTR, gave an informal warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion section

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

Comments:

This is a recurring dispute, which seems to originate in ideological precepts. It arises every few months from a different editor, the last go-around only a month ago. Those discussion are still present in the current talk page in the form of two out of the three closed RFC discussions not even having been archived yet. I'm requesting administrator intervention here simply because we don't need yet another argument on this item so soon after the last one. Over the next 15 minutes or so, I will be adding a summary of the previously archived discussions to the current talk page section, because the editor doesn't seem to be willing to read them. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 01:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You're being very disingenuous: being bold, starting a discussion and tagging (another bold edit to attract input) is what editors are supposed to do (besides, those were done more than 24 hours ago). The fact that you dismissed my valid and well explained concerns (while referring to them as it) speaks volumes about your ability to respect BRD. Honestly, this looks like another attempt at silencing anyone who questions your favourite version of an article that you seem to consider as your property. Rest assured, I will be inviting experienced editors to the article's talk page and then we'll see what you have to say about the issues concerning the policies and the guidelines. M.Bitton (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Beware of WP:CANVASS if you're planning on yet another RFC on the subject of calling Columbus Genoese vs. Italian. By my count, it would be the 5th such RFC in the last six months. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 02:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't you worry about that. Once done, you too will have the chance to discuss the specific issues that have been raised (about policy and guidelines). M.Bitton (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverting another editor's good-faith addition of a disputed-inline tag and then reporting them for edit warring when they restore it with an active talk-page discussion going on is the height of chutzpah. I will not reward it with a block on the reported user. And that level of tendentious battleground editing really puts this dispute beyond the scope of this noticeboard. This is more for AN/I, and if continues down the path he seems to be treading, there really should be sanctions of some kind. Consider yourself warned. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2024‎ (UTC)

User:2A02:C7E:5C23:5A00:F810:28B3:CE4F:9DB1 reported by User:NoobThreePointOh (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I suspect there's a bot changing it to the outdated info."
 * 2)  "Spelling error"
 * 3)  "Fixed."
 * 4)  "Trolls changing it..."
 * 5)  "Spelling error"
 * 6)  "Update"
 * 1)  "Spelling error"
 * 2)  "Update"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to keep making reverts on the page of adding unsourced info even after I warned them and said what they were adding wasn't true. I even told them that it was disruptive and they should stop, but they still continue to edit war. Please place a temporary block on this IP. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Applied to . Noob, while you made four reverts yourself, I consider this "obvious vandalism", not least because of the user's attitude, and therefore exempt under WP:3RRNO. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this. I guess some of it was partially my fault... but every time I reverted, that user would always test my patience by manually reverting my edits. Anyways, I'm relieved. Thanks again. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When that happens, report after their fourth revert. Or request protection after one of yours. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)