Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive478

User:Margen74 reported by User:Squatch347 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babylon_Bee|The Babylon Bee

User being reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Margen74|Margen74

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&oldid=1197987911

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=1199233040&oldid=1197987911
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=next&oldid=1199321184

I'd also point out that this user has engaged in unconstructive editing recently on this page (sorry I'm not sure how to do diffs): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=1196423488&oldid=1190100943 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=next&oldid=1196454685

This isn't quite relevant here, but I'd also point out that he appears to have mimicked another user's profile page, including some access abilities I don't think are correct. His page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Margen74 Page he copied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seawolf35

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASquatch347&diff=1199321689&oldid=1199233624

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

Post on Margen's page for this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Margen74#Edit_Waring

Discussion on Seawolf's page about profile being stolen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seawolf35#Margen74

Squatch347 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the merit of this report, they are WP:NOTHERE given their behavior thus far and should most likely be indeffed. I have notified them of this discussion. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 20:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They now attempted to remove the section on my talk concerning them. v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I am a Wikipedia editor and have attempted to add information to the above-linked Wikipedia article regarding recent studies on firearm usage and a correlation to crime rates in the United States. I have cited objective, governmentally-approved studies and set of conclusions to my edit in order to prove what has been found through research, however, the above-mentioned user has taken it upon themselves to revert my useful edits to the page while claiming that I derive my statistics from a supposed election-denying extremist and hyperlinking me to partisan webpages regarding the personal political opinions of this individual. I am requesting that an administrator or another Wikipedia moderator of sorts looks into this situation and resolves it promptly, as I do not appreciate having my fact-checked, cited, and verifiable work removed at the prompt desire of a random, partisan individual. UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Being new to leaving reports, I seem to have made an error and neglected to insert the link to the Wikipedia article in question. Here is the article: Concealed carry in the United States, and the name of the user being reported is "Neutrality." UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No discussion on the article's talk page. No edit warring notification to other user. Only two reverts by user:Neutrality. OP has now made the same edit a third time (and been reverted by a different editor. There is no edit warring here by Neutrality. UnregisteredSkeptic, discuss the edit on the article's talk page as has been requested, and don't restore the edit again. Meters (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

User:The Banner reported by User:Re34646 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 27 January 2024 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
 * 2) 27 November 2023 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
 * 3) 18 August 2023 Removed edits because there was no Wikipedia article related to that software package
 * 4) 20 September 2020 Added requirement to list that they must have 'their own article on Wikipedia'. He labeled this 'Clarified criteria for inclusion of software on the page.'
 * 5) 17 Jun 2020 Removed edits because they were 'without a Wikipedia article' on them.
 * 6) 17 November 2019 Removed edits because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
 * 7) 10 September 2019 Removed programs 'without article, deemed not notable.'
 * 8) 2 September 2019 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
 * 9) 20 December 2018 He removed edits 'without own article' that he deemed 'not notable'.
 * 10) 5 December 2018 Removed edits because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
 * 11) 23 October 2018 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
 * 12) 9 June 2018 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
 * 13) 10 October 2014 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.

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: It is possible The Banner believes that the Wikipedia definition of 'notable' means that something has to have an article on Wikipedia. This is not the definition of notable which I found on Wikipedia.

The repeated behavior of deleting others contributions, and telling them to 'write an article' doesn't achieve the goals of Wikipedia. It seems they are trying to control the content of that page, whether it is an innocent misunderstanding or not. And it certainly isn't helping increase the value of information on that page.Re34646 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CSC. But IMHO, this is retaliating for this removal of a non-notable package, added by Re34646. The Banner  talk 00:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Inteqaam reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked, 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1199946313 by Soetermans (talk) Your messing with the 2022 census results and combining it with a 2015 survey which soesn't even talk mention tge 86% figure and this is being discussed join the discusstion and stop reverting."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1199917903 by Yung Yohan (talk) Stop messing with the census the survey doesnt even talk abpit irreligion as not religious is not about irreligion and tge survey is from gallup is older then the census."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1199785140 by Yung Yohan (talk) Your removing the census results with a older survey stop that."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1199712866 by Yung Yohan (talk) The 2022 census is more credible then a 2015 census and not religious is not linked to" irreligion""
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1199595094 by Soetermans (talk) The gallup survey doesn't state that it says 0% or less than 1% said they were atheist while the 2022 census said 91% of the country is muslim not 86%"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1199338520 by Yung Yohan (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1199336553 by Yung Yohan (talk) The survey doesn't state that"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1199336553 by Yung Yohan (talk) The survey doesn't state that"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
 * 2)   "BRD"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring."
 * 4)   "/* January 2024 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All I did was revert the edits the other user made as they used a 2015 survey and removed the 2022 census results for only Islam as the 2022 census 91% said they were muslim while the gallup survey mentions no religion by name as just says 93% said they were religious, 5 said they were not religious and 0% said they were atheist and 1% did not reply. The user then changed the figure of the 91% from the 2022 census and changed it to 86% which is not mentioned in the survey and no religion was mentioned by name.

When I corrected it you reverted those changes and now the other user has done the same a discussion was started on their userpage which they did reply to but still made the edit and you didn't even leave a warning for them.

I read the rules now I wasn't aware if I get punished I see its my fault I should have discussed it but I did leave edit summaries I thought that was discussing the issue if not I get it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteqaam (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You just keep on going though. Perhaps you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, but Competence is required. Stop reverting. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You choose not to engage in the talk pages of yung yohan or the talk page they clearly are leaving disruptive edits by removing the 2022 census results and using 2015 survey which doesn't mention islam or any other religion. Inteqaam (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a period of 72 hours. Continuing to revert after being reported to this board is rarely an optimal idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Master106 reported by User:Someonewhoisusinginternet (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Can you please work with me instead of just reporting me? Master106 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Master, I don't see how anyone can work with you. After reviewing the lengthy, infuriatingly formatted talk page discussion I could not block you fast enough—no, wait a minute, I didn't even get finished before I'd had enough of your IDHT, tendentious behavior to make me want to scream at my monitor. Your constant "logic" that just because a source does not explicitly include Chloe as a supporting character does not mean we can't say she's a protgaonist (and as accurately points out, anyone who claims a work has 19 protagonists clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word "protagonist") is, well, some kind of clearly identified and named logical fallacy that I can't be bothered (because your editing bothers me enough already) to look up right now. And as Serge further points out, if you were right, you would have found a reliable source proving your point long ago. However, your handling of your own conduct is even worse. There's this disingenuous non-apology apology for what you concede was edit warring (and for someone already blocked twice for edit warring, there can be no claim to having done so "accidentally"), your repeatedly stated longing for "a consensus we can all agree on together" (redundant wording in any event) when it is as plain as day that consensus is against you and that what you really want behind all that polite, civil language is everyone to see things your way, and the edit summary behind your most recent revert: "Please don't revert it and instead make it better". You do not make it better by consistently reverting to your preferred version ... an edit summary like that is practically a guilty-as-charged confession to edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Braintic reported by User:Renewal6 (Result: Partially blocked for 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 25 */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1199623449 by Alsoriano97 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* 25 */"
 * 4)  "/* 25 */ It is NOT a modified description, it is the EXACT job title (where "of State" is optional)"
 * 5)  "/* 25 */ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1199198324 by Renewal6 (talk) "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names""
 * 7)  "/* 25 */ /* 25 */ Sanath Nishantha ... "Minister of State for Water Supply" is the NAME of the office. It is not "self-aggrandisement" to capitalise it, most of all because he is dead so anything done here cannot be self-anything."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user made an eighth and ninth  revert after being reported here. Renewal6 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * from editing Deaths in 2024. The filer and respondent both participated in Talk:Deaths in 2024, where there was clear pushback against capitalizing the title. Even after this attempt to resolve on talk, and pushback against capitalizing had been made clear by multiple editors, respondent continued to twice revert to respondent's own preferred version on 28 January (i.e. the eighth and ninth reverts given by Renewal6 in their comment above). — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

User:C. A. Russell reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: No violation; subsequently indefinitely blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  – good thing this abomination is a category page and not actual policy; it's now clear why RFD has turned into a gamified mess over the last year or so...
 * 2)  – Undid revision 1200203580 by (talk) revert #1
 * 3)  – Undid revision 1200234996 by (talk) revert #2 of unexplained revert for page not in alignment wrt actual redirect policy and guidelines
 * 4)  – Undid revision 1200615340 by Hey man im josh (talk) this page is not a policy page, and this change is not a policy change; this edit is descriptive, and what's described here is already "implemented"—not a proposal or a wouldn't-it-be-nice prescription

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They actually. I felt if I issued it back it would come as retaliatory. I only noticed they were edit warring after receiving their warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They were told to discuss the changes three times. Once by Tavix and twice by me  and.

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

Comments:

This is an erroneous report. The first edit listed here is not a revert. (There is no 3RR violation here on my part.) Please correct/amend the report. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 03:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, please don't leave the Previous version reverted to: parameter blank, . El_C 03:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @El C: To be clear, this report is focused on edit warring by re-adding their preferred version four times. I will update to a dif of the original version in a second. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. It's still not clear whether it's a revert, though, without that parameter filled. El_C 03:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be related to an ongoing ANI thread, though the AN3 thread was opened one minute before the ANI thread was opened. I'm not sure if we should merge this conversation to the discussion at the more central venue (WP:ANI), but doing so would keep us from splitting the conversation across two pages. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that to be honest, it makes more sense at this point in time. Though the user did not revert more than 3 times, I do believe they're been edit warring by re-adding the text four times. It seems as though their intention was to WP:GAME the system and hinted at that by calling out the number of reverts they were doing. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * yeah, let's attend to the matter there. El_C 03:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Subsequently indefinitely blocked by . There is a discussion at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Jonmeid555 reported by User:Ser! (Result: Blocked indef as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13 Jan
 * 2) 26 Jan
 * 3) 28 Jan
 * 4) 30 Jan
 * 5) 30 Jan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 28 Jan and edit summary on 26 Jan

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a, but it had seemingly been discussed before and the subject of the report replaced other user’s comments on talk page

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

Comments:

Editor has been slow edit-warring on this topic for a long period, before even the first date in this report, and engaging in WP:IDHT behaviour. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Beyond the long-term edit warring, there is clearly WP:COI editing going on here.-- Ponyo bons mots 18:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

== User:JUMPp1harm and User:KallebTigray reported by User:Wowzers122 (Result: Declined - too complicated to handle here and should be filed at WP:ANI; Kalleb blocked 31 hours for harassment) ==

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: etc
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)

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: I have no idea who's in the wrong or who started this but I've noticed these two users reverting each other's edits on Kingdom of Askum-related articles in the past few days. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is too complicated to handle here and should be filed at WP:ANI. I will note that in reviewing some of the two editors' edits, vandalized two pages created by  by blanking them, one draft and one article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah, he keeps on reverting my edits which are correct, i even sent him a source proving my point but he still does not accept the truth. KallebTigray (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * These pages are either useless or incorrect. I have removed the page for Adal kingdom, as there is already a page called Adal Sultanate. There is no need for two separate pages. This guy has no clue what he's talking about. JUMPp1harm (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * there is MULTIPLE SOURCES, stating about the Kingdom of Adal. The Adal Sultanate literally isnt the same as the Adal Kingdom? Are you ok? maybe actually look at my sources instead of just pointing out shit and not looking at the evidence in the draft. you literally plagiarized MY DRAFT. It wasn't even an article. KallebTigray (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would add to what Bbb said that some sort of discussion and enforcement at a forum other than this one is desirable since all these pages come under a contentious topic, the Horn of Africa. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Addendum. Kalleb has been blocked for 31 hours by for harassment. I have also put CTOPS alerts on both users' talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically for these two edit summaries: and   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd warned both users about WP:NPA, but a day or so apart from each other, as I hadn't immediately noticed the edits from KallebTigray. This seems as good a place as any to note that I've also warned KallebTigray about WP:NOR (more than once; , ) which was met (I believe) with WP:IDHT . Other editors have moved a few  of this user's new pages into Draft space (which I'd considered doing with Agʿazi People‎), to an extent that (combined with the WP:NOR) I'm wondering about WP:CIR. I guess it's all a non-issue for the next 31 hours, but otherwise I don't know whether I am too WP:INVOLVED in the topic area to do anything about it.  Feel free to disabuse me of that notion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

User:86.98.159.93 reported by User:Luke10.27 (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added a little extra praise"
 * 1)  "added a little extra praise"
 * 1)  "added a little extra praise"
 * 1)  "added a little extra praise"
 * 1)  "added a little extra praise"
 * 1)  "added a little extra praise"
 * 1)  "added a little extra praise"
 * 1)  "added a little extra praise"
 * 1)  "added a little extra praise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Adding WP:PUFFERY and reverting removals Luke10.27 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31 hours by .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

User:ShirtNShoesPls reported by User:Rambling Rambler (Result: Both edit-warring users blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

'''Previous version reverted to:

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

'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Looks to be heavy edit-warring on article for Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League, demanding people go to talk page and accept their included material in contravention of WP:ONUS. From quick glance there looks to be potential WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE issues. Multiple existing recent warnings of editor warning on their talk page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * There was no attempt to resolve the dispute on either the article's talk page or mine. Others, including an admin, also wanted at least part of the material to remain. Therefore the WP:ONUS is on the people who want to remove multiple RS's from the article. That is why I believe the edits do not fall under WP: 3RR, as I made them to "enforce certain overriding policies". ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You linked to WP:ONUS, but it seems you didn't read it: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Your understanding of the policy is incorrect, and even if it were correct, it does not meet the steep requirements of 3RR exemption. Grandpallama (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia administrator and several other contributors sided with me. That's why I believed that the WP: ONUS was upon those attempting to remove the information. There was no attempt to resolve the matter on talk. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Again: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Grandpallama (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest this report needs to include editor Rakewater, too. There's a lot of edit warring going on, and too many reversions, by both. Grandpallama (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * A Wikipedia administrator (who I'm not sure if I'm permitted to tag) also believed that my edits should remain. Since multiple, credible RS's and an admin wanted to material to stay: I saw the WP: ONUS as falling upon the editors attempting to remove it.
 * It was never my intention to edit war, this seemed to be a rare case where WP: 3RR doesn't apply (although I concede that this is somewhat subjective), and no editor either contacted me on my talk or attempted to resolve the dispute on the article's discussion page, despite my appeals for them to do so.
 * That's why I acted the way I did. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RRNO. The exemptions are clear, and they do not apply in this case, or to your edits, regardless of whom agreed with you. There's nothing subjective about it. Grandpallama (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I should've have tagged the sources needing verifications much earlier, so I'm willing to take responsibility. Rakewater (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, "both" means the reported user, who demonstrates an IDHT problem when, in talk page discussions and discussions above, they simply restate their argument even when it's pointed out to them (repeatedly) that they're wrong both on the facts and on policy (for one thing, WP:ONUS is not reversible ... it does not mean that if a putative consensus favors inclusion, those opposing it have to prove why it shouldn't be included). And, yes, Shirt, your interpretation of 3RR is "somewhat subjective" ... in fact I would characterize that as a rather generous term, since it's obvious from the following discussion you aren't familiar with the linked 3RRNO, which is very narrowly written and very bright-line and does not in any way cover your edits. If you had made only one questionable revert, I might forgive you on ignorance-of-the-law grounds, but you didn't, and frankly your conduct has been so egregious that that really doesn't matter. I have also blocked, per Grandpallama's suggestion above, because it takes two to edit war (Shirt's protestations of lack of intent notwithstanding, that is never a defense outside of 3RRNO) outside of team reverts, and in this case without Rake it's entirely possible things might not have gotten so far out of hand. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Rambling Rambler doesn’t appear to be blocked. Doug Weller  talk 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Reread what I wrote. I blocked, per 's suggestion. They were warring with Shirt regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Both users blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1202059569 by Geraldo Perez (talk)Stop it. You’re not the boss here!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1202058503 by Geraldo Perez (talk)Stop acting line the owner of these articles. You are wrong. Stop your disruptive editing."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1202057055 by Geraldo Perez (talk) STOP IT. Read your talk page. You are WRONG!!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1202050013 by Geraldo Perez (talk)STOP REVERTING!!! You clearly don’t understand what you’re talking talking about!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1202047729 by Geraldo Perez (talk)No. Stop reverting! You clearly don’t understand this subject. Adoption does not create biological relationship. Adoption does not change who physically fathered Joely."

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

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

Comments:

Even after a warning and the filing of this report, the user continues to edit war and be disruptive. Amaury • 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see the same reverts from ; is there a reason why he's not reported as well ?-- Ponyo bons mots 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm asking myself the question the same question here? Geraldo Perez is acting like the owner of these articles. They actually reverted any editor who changed that content on Joely Collins for months now. I have tried to carefully explain the situation on their talk page but they're just not listening. I'm at loss how to resolve this here.Tvx1 23:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Discuss on the article talk. If that fails, WP:3O or WP:RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But Geraldo Perez has reverted five four other users besides me in months on Joely Collins alone on this subject. What would give me more chance to get through to them that they are incorrect? I mean I put a Wikipedia link that carefully explains all sorts of sibling relationships and still they refuse to even entertain a different view than theirs. I'm really at a loss here.Tvx1 23:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * . Both pblocked for one week  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , it's the same story at Simon Collins and Lily Collins.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess the question is multiple pblocks or just standard blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to you, but adding the additional p-blocks while allowing the editors to hash out their disagreement on the talk might be a first step, assuming civility can prevail.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll try to start a discussion on the talk page of Phil Collins seeing as it concerns al his children. If someone not blocked from editing this children's articles could please at the correct templates to them advertising this discussion? Tvx1 23:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So you blocked us from one article for a week now (meanwhile Geraldo Perez continued to revert on another). So what's your suggestion on how to best to proceed here?Tvx1 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * SFR's pretty generous here, I was about to block site-wide. I've extended both users' blocks to all three articles. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed that as I was trying to add those articles to the pblock. If I had noticed it was multiple articles to begin with I likely would have settled on a full block as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, to all involved, the discussions belong on the individual article talk pages, not on user talk pages. You all have enough combined edits and and years of editing to know this.-- Ponyo bons mots 00:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I started a talk page discussion here. If someone could please add templates advertising this discussion on the articles I was blocked from? I hope this shows a token of my good faith here. Tvx1 00:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone willing to help here with advertising the discussion on the relevant articles here? {{{{u|Ponyo}}, {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{u|Amaury}}, {{u|Ingenuity}}?Tvx1 01:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You can place a note on the talk pages. You're not blocked from those. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Rawn3012 reported by User:ImperialAficionado (Result: 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 of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:


 * . While not strictly a 3RR violation (the fourth diff does not appear to be a revert to any previous version and should go where the "Previous version reverted to" diff would go) it is still clearly edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

User:XiounuX reported by User:CactiStaccingCrane (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1195446695

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1198232352
 * 2) Special:Diff/1201135139
 * 3) Special:Diff/1201151235
 * 4) Special:Diff/1202199580
 * 5) Special:Diff/1202331730
 * 6) Special:Diff/1202334251

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sun and other stuff at User_talk:XiounuX

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1202335364

Comments: There is evidence that XiounuX has a combative behavior and refused to collaborate with other editors. There are multiple warnings at User_talk:XiounuX to stop the reverts and communicate, but it seems that they would need a block to do so. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You can try entrap me into violating the 3-reversal rule all you want, but all I did was I simply added a peer reviewed scientific reference. The fact remains that you do not get to discuss established facts like peer reviewed scientific literature, and you can only counter with another such reference. This report is a joke trying to establish a dangerous precedent: defend the nonexistent right to promote one's own point of view (that even counters established facts like peer reviewed science). XiounuX (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just made an additional revert, placing them at 4 for the day. Also attempting to chill discussion on the talk page with talk about libel cases. - MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Using entrapment to justify entrapment. XiounuX (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:Don't be high maintenance might be useful here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And now Revert #5. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * by User:ScottishFinnishRadish per this discussion at ANI. Aoidh (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

User:CtasACT reported by User:LeenchaOromia (Result: Blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is a link to my first revert (edit: first and only revert)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

I reverted his new edit that was deleting previous content. I did so once explaining my revert and thinking my explanation was solid enough. The reported user on the other hand continued to revert two more times. Once to my revert, and another to another user who edited in the same thing I was trying to maintain. On his most recent revert, he goes "if someone want's to revert, go to the talk page" instead of going to the talk page himself, clearly being aware of the talk page rule but deciding to revert two more times anyway. LeenchaOromia (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * (My Personal impute) I am at reason to believe that there is a high chance (User:LeenchaOromia) account was solely created for the reason of political agenda whether it be mainstream or not, and may disrupt Wikipedia, my edits technically did not violate the 3 revert rule due to the fact exemption exist, the exemption be it is that the being (User:LeenchaOromia) edits are ambiguous, which i feel and have strong beliefs of due to the fact, i gave a backlog on the language on two separate occasions (1) of them i explained there needs to be a talk page discussion on the Infobox, [1 ]. My edits are not of bad faith, it is simply a reason to belief any of (User:LeenchaOromia) edits which include [2 ] needs to be discussed first, and my [3 ] was based on the fact you can get inspiration from FA status since "They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." Since FA Articles passed an extensive test.  CtasACT (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The above is incoherent.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They have gotten better .... but they've had this problem for a long time. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 03:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also combined with not assuming good faith, not discussing on the article talk page as asked, and doing this in an article clearly within a contentious topic (WP:ARBHORN, on an issue at the heart of what makes it contentious). Since their edits over the past year showed that they had not yet been made aware of CTOPS, I took care of that as well. The block is thus a regular administrative action. (They also, as noted implicitly above, seem to have competence issues). Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

User:45.132.93.34 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Page protected)
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 1919 Soviet invasion of Ukraine."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an ongoing edit war between this IP and User:Olek Novy. Please see the edit logs for the article. IanDBeacon (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * for two weeks by . Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

User:174.91.209.79 reported by User:Kenquenito (Result: Warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

List of highest-grossing Philippine films:



List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines:



Diffs of the user's reverts:

List of highest-grossing Philippine films:

      

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines:

  

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines:

 

List of highest-grossing Philippine films:

        

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

Comments:

This user keeps reverting the two stated articles to include the film Maid in Malacañang. He claimed that the film grossed P700 million in the box office. However, he cannot provide reliable sources. He keeps citing IlokaKnows and Politiko, which are blog sites. The sites don't even have a working About Us page to verify that they are trusted organizations. Another "source" he provides is the tabloid named Bandera. It was discussed on Talk:List of highest-grossing Philippine films that 'Bandera is an editorial tabloid, which is clearly an unreliable source. Bandera mentioned Darryl Yap (the director) as a source, and Yap himself, mentioned Wikipedia as his own source. This is a clear example of circular reporting.' However, this user noted in his latest edits that 'we should accept the truth'. He has been doing it since January 18, 2024.Kenquenito (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do want to point out a few things with this report: first is that the diffs shown are largely duplicates of your own edit. Secondly, per WP:3RR A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. With that in mind the edits on the List of highest-grossing Philippine films article on February 3 are a single revert, the same with February 2 and the next revert is from January 28, a week ago. Compounding this is that when filing a report it provides a line for "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" which you did not retain, as they were given no such warning. There's no bright-line 3RR violation and while they have made a few reverts over the space of a week or two, they were not warned that this was edit warring and so reasonably would not be aware of the edit warring policy, so a warning at most seems reasonable at this time. I'll warn them on their talk page now, but I'll leave it for another administrator to decide if anything additional is appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Page history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1

Comments:

Hopefully being resolved. Finally started engaging on the talk page as I was typing this. Still, let's get this on record since there were threats in the edit note of the 3rd revert discussing accusing me of a violation despite repeated attempts at engagement. Editor could definitely use a friendly admin/2nd admin (if they are one) stopping by to explain how "more cites needed" tag isn't the same thing as a notability contest. — Llywelyn II   18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * any comments you wish to make you can do so on the report below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LlywelynII reported by User:Cortador (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
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: 1

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

Comments:

LlywelynII repeatedly removed a tag I had added to the article as it lacked sufficient sourcing. This continued after I had noted further sourced on the talk page. LlywelynII also claimed to be an administrator; I was unable to find them on the list of administrators, active or general. Cortador (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , you and are edit-warring over a tag for more citations. You added it, and LlywelynII removed it (multiple times). Both of you are guilty of edit-warring, but I don't understand your position. You created the article and then added maintenance tags to it? If you didn't think it was ready for mainspace, you should have created a draft and worked on it until it was. Also, I don't see where LlywelynII claimed to be an administrator - please provide a diff.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 I did not create the article. Llywelynll did, and I added the tag.
 * Here they mentioned "(other) admins", which I can only interpret as they referring to themselves as an admin, as no admins were involved otherwise. In their report above, they further request a "2nd admin". Cortador (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right about who created the article. Not sure how I screwed that up, but my bad. I'm not sure what LlywelynII means by that edit summary. Perhaps they can explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hiya. I can redo the entire application again but it's clear in every part of the posts submitted by Cortador above:


 * They initiated a contentious edit; it was reverted; they warred over it, although currently stopping short of 3rr. At every point in the process, I attempted to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page and on the other user's own page, which was ignored until this process began. That's not edit warring on my part but I'm fine with the page being locked at the moment. It should be locked without the contested change pending any consensus to the contrary or some further discussion between us, though.


 * We're both editors in good standing for over a decade. It's only that they're misapplying policy and refusing to stop and discuss it. They just need someone (ideally you since you're here) to remind them to take a breath and do so. — Llywelyn II   20:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Nysreti1 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */It's in everybody wiki so I'm gonna put it back"
 * 2)  "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
 * 3)  "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
 * 4)  "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
 * 5)  "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
 * 6)  "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
 * 1)  "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
 * 2)  "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
 * 3)  "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello. The editor has continued edit warring after warning and trying to persistently include a fake war. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of the reverts they've made are self-reverts, which are permitted. But I will leave a CTOPS notice on their page ... it would probably be helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:Snarcky1996 (Result: Page fully protected)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind:


 * 1)
 * 2)

Bicameral mentality:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Please note that the reporter has repeatedly removed explanations of policy (OR, SYNTH) from their talk page without reply. They have also not replied to concerns on the talk pages of either article. Also, there is an ongoing discussion at NORN. Skyerise (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In full, by, for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

User:ASFCEdits reported by User:LuCKY (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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: The user removing licensed image and claims it "ugly photo". There are no any free quality image except this one. The user uploaded non-free image taken from Instagram page, that image has been deleted from Commons. The user does not know policies here. It looks like they are employee of casting agency.  LuCkY talk 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

User:109.52.60.7 reported by User:Philipnelson99 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Update of the newspaper's editorial line."
 * 2)  "Added links and informations."
 * 3)  "Update of the editorial line. Link to a newspaper article."
 * 4)  "Update of the newspaper's editorial line. Link to an in-depth article."
 * 5)  "Update of the newspaper's political line"
 * 1)  "Update of the newspaper's editorial line."
 * 2)  "Added links and informations."
 * 3)  "Update of the editorial line. Link to a newspaper article."
 * 4)  "Update of the newspaper's editorial line. Link to an in-depth article."
 * 5)  "Update of the newspaper's political line"
 * 1)  "Update of the newspaper's political line"
 * 1)  "Update of the newspaper's political line"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple editors have asked them to discuss these changes on the talk page and referenced policy in edit summaries. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Well past 3RR now. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Dheerajj.12 reported by User:Dcotos (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* I have sent you a note about a page you started */ Reply"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital."
 * 3)   "/* I have sent you a note about a page you started */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Dheerajj.12 blanked the article Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital and used Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital, Samastipur and created duplicate article after GB fan declined your WP:G7, and Maliner Declined CSD request as it was not valid as per CSD criteria, that seemed to act as if the user is the owner of the page!. I also warned the creator at talk page. so redirecting Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital, Samastipur to Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital will solve the issue. Dcotos ( talk ) 08:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:100.36.106.199 reported by User:Aaronfranke (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Here is the article before their actions took place. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&oldid=1181406476

Diffs of the user's reverts: Not really reverts but here are the diffs
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1181657859
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1181658242
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1197420203
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1204112960

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here is a link to my latest revert of their changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1204881973

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConformal_linear_transformation&diff=1204114176&oldid=1196049973

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A100.36.106.199&diff=1204884643&oldid=1185496415

Comments:

This user (or really, IP address) is continually adding nonsensical content to this article that claims well-defined terms are undefined. From their actions alone I suspect this user is not malicious, but I also see from the history on their talk page they have had many incidents before. As far as I can tell they likely believe they are doing the right thing, but their actions do not make any sense to me. They are continually adding their nonsensical content back in over and over and I have reverted it each time. This is an edit war that needs intervention. Aaronfranke (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oy vey. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Given this comment, and the same comment in their latest revert, I suspect they are in fact a bad faith editor. — Czello (music) 11:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that’s a terrible decision-making process so it’s not surprising it leads you to a wrong conclusion. The content dispute requires input from people with a solid understanding of linear algebra at the undergraduate level. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Because apparently I am the only competent editor in this content dispute, I have requested additional input at WT:WPM. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not call other editors incompetent – WP:NPA. — Czello (music) 11:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes well you have just removed tags from a bunch of nonsensical content, that are justified on the talk page, about material you apparently don’t understand, and without sources. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But as long as you are tut-tutting, maybe you should have started with my edits being called vandalism, and the fact that AF has utterly failed to respond to the substantive objections that I’ve made on the talk page. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 331dot (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I also gave the filer a formal warning for edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What I have seen from 100.36.106.199 are comments that are technically correct but expressed in markedly uncollegial language. Aaronfranke is also at fault for removing the tags without discussion and without providing sources. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2003:d2:ff39:b494:f519:d6da:f330:2793 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked 24 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:

Comments:

An SPA that seems to be here to right great wrongs about this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

And still at it [] so this will continue until a block is imposed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Genre-warring and removal of sourced information on multiple pages (Result: Warned both reported users)
Across (at least) (Don't Go Back to) Rockville and Supernatural Superserious, there has been back-and-forth about removing sourced genre categories by (and some reverts by ). I tried to intervene on the talk pages of both articles, but I do not believe that Seasider53 is discussing in good faith or is particularly interested in collaborating after his last post, so I am escalating here, because the back-and-forth is not productive and I would like an admin to intervene to keep this from escalating or continuing. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussion has been taking place, which I'm happy to continue with. And there has been no input from IMMAEDITTHISPAGE so far, likely because they haven't yet had time. I've provided valid reasons (and links to the relevant guideline) why the genre should not be included which have not been sufficiently addressed ("The inherent nature of music genres is that they are arbitrary opinions.") Seasider53 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And really, this looks like you meant to post it at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I read the above instructions and it doesn't oblige me to use that style. Is there some obligation that I'm missing? The problem is edit-warring and I'm trying to get it to stop. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From the instructions: "The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from" (emphasis mine).-- Ponyo bons mots 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That I did. Thanks/sorry. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * both reported users . &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks.

User:Owais Al Qarni reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Owais Al Qarni-এর করা 1205067610 নং সংস্করণ পুনরুদ্ধার করা হয়েছে   (পুনরুদ্ধারকারী)"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Zuck28 (talk) to last version by Owais Al Qarni"
 * 3)  "Reverted edits by Zuck28 (talk) to last version by Owais Al Qarni"
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by Zuck28 (talk) to last version by Owais Al Qarni"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Zuck28 (talk) to last version by Owais Al Qarni"
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by Zuck28 (talk) to last version by Owais Al Qarni"
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by Zuck28 (talk) to last version by Owais Al Qarni"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring with zero discussion. Other user is also edit warring back. GraziePrego (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There are instances of edit-warring on Syed Mehboob Rizwi also. I believe it is worthless to change Sunni into "Deobandi"-alone, and as such there should be a wider RfC that solves this puzzle. Either only mentioning Islamic scholar, or if mentioning of the movement they have had relations with in "lede" is any necessary. I reverted one of @Zuck28's edits and they appeared constructive in that manner and didn't revert me. However, I'm uncertain why they are engaging in an edit-war over here. If someone is constantly reverting, a good signal to to right away start a talk page discussion (if they appear non-responsive on their own user talk page). I suggest changing these articles to as they were and issue hard warnings to both, and initiate an RfC right away. ─ Aafī   (talk)  06:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @TheAafi @GraziePrego
 * I have made constructive edits with edit summaries, and I have also initiated a discussion on @Owais Al Qarni's talk page. However, it was they who intentionally reverted the edits without providing a summary and deleted my discussion from their talk page.
 * I value constructive edits and believe that individuals with insight and understanding are inclined to explain and substantiate their perspectives rather than simply reverting without explanation. I refrain from reverting significant information without providing comments, acknowledging that others may offer valuable insights. Despite my efforts to engage with them, I find them to be unapproachable and discourteous. Zuck28 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * While not a 3RR violation the constant revert across several articles with no attempt at discussion or even an edit summary is disruptive. - Aoidh (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Zuck28 reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "wp:EDITWAR unexplained RRR"
 * 2)  "Unexplained wp:EW"
 * 3)  "Unexplained reversion"
 * 4)  "Do not undo any edit without any reason or reference. Undid revision 1204403225 by Owais Al Qarni (talk)"
 * 1)  "Unexplained reversion"
 * 2)  "Do not undo any edit without any reason or reference. Undid revision 1204403225 by Owais Al Qarni (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring with zero discussion. Other user is also edit warring back. GraziePrego (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @GraziePregoKindly review my edit history, and you’ll see that every time I reverted anything, I added comments in the summary. I also made efforts to engage in discussions, but @Owais Al Qarn removed my discussion from their talk page. Additionally, they were using Bangla language, which may not be suitable on the English Wikipedia platform. Zuck28 (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * As with the above report, no attempt at discussion. Edit summaries are not discussion and their edit summaries constantly cite edit warring as reasons for their reversions, meaning they are well aware of the edit warring policy and choose to engage in edit warring across multiple articles regardless. - Aoidh (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:81.170.20.2 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1205152103 by AntiDionysius (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1205124146 by Czello (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Beliefs */"
 * 4)  "Take it to the talk page"
 * 5)  "Summary of the views section in light of latest developments related to rhetoric, stance on culture, lgbtq and race issues. Fully cited."
 * 1)  "/* Beliefs */"
 * 2)  "Take it to the talk page"
 * 3)  "Summary of the views section in light of latest developments related to rhetoric, stance on culture, lgbtq and race issues. Fully cited."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * While it doesn't appear to be a WP:3RR violation as the fourth revert above doesn't appear to be a revert, they are edit warring regardless. Aoidh (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:174.91.209.79 reported by User:Kenquenito (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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



Diffs of the user's reverts:



Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

        

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



Comments: \\

On February 4, 2024, I reported User:174.91.209.79 for reverting the article List of highest-grossing Philippine films. He keeps adding the film Maid in Malacañang in the list and claims that the film grossed P700 million in the box office. However, he cannot provide reliable sources. He keeps citing IlokaKnows and Politiko, which are blog sites. The sites don't even have a working About Us page to verify that they are trusted organizations. Another "source" he provides is the tabloid named Bandera. It was discussed on Talk:List of highest-grossing Philippine films that 'Bandera is an editorial tabloid, which is clearly an unreliable source. Bandera mentioned Darryl Yap (the director) as a source, and Yap himself, mentioned Wikipedia as his own source. This is a clear example of circular reporting.' However, this user noted in his latest edits that 'we should accept the truth'. He has been doing it since January 18, 2024.

Despite receiving warning from User:Aoidh, he reverted the page once again on February 7 at 00:22 and on February 8 at 21:31.

I'm a bit ignorant about Wikipedia's 3RR rule but I'm sure that he's committing violations by forcing Wikipedia's readers to include something on an article without citing reliable sources just to spread misinformation. Kenquenito (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No 3RR violation here but it's still edit warring, which is actionable. Even that this is a slow-paced edit war I suspect page protection might be necessary. — Czello (music</i>) 11:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:80:4781:47D0:99DB:228B:8EBF:BD83 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Songwriting and production credits */"
 * 2)  "/* Songwriting and production credits */"
 * 3)  "Added facts about Flip"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Probably same person as blocked user / sockpuppet and, and IP editor  - adding same text. Tacyarg (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ( &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Seasider53 reported by User:2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (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:

This user in my view abuses their admin privilege, by continually removing any mention of cowal from articles that are in the Cowal area. They have been doing this for years!2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Cowal

I added Greenheart wood piles to the Dunoon Pier article and linked to a disambiguation, but instead of fixing the link they just reverted!2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Also this user leaves abusive messages on talk pages see here for example [] Quote "Are you okay? Seasider53 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)" and on [] to see past comments I have posted with NO reply!

This user has in the past "stopped" me from editing as I cannot be bothered with their unhelpful revisions. I am now raising this complaint as a last resort.2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As you can tell I am no Wikipedia expert. But this user is proving to my mind to be unnecessarily unhelpful. 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This user continually reverts with NO explanation, rather than fixing edits made in good faith. 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * filer needs to address objections before restoring problematic content and use informative edit summaries when reverting others. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Really!! 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So it is OK to leave "Are you okay?" on a talk page?  2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No., please avoid comments like that. IP, your style of communication will come off as yelling to many users, and you should consider changing it up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Another example. "It wasn’t an oversight. I just can’t be bothered to clean up all the time. Seasider53 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)"
 * So, this editor cannot "be bothered"!  They are under NO obligation to edit!!!!!!  2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please consider creating a user account so that your discussions can be centralised. Using multiple IPs (not your fault) over several years makes it harder to maintain discussions. You seem to edit well; you just don't respond well to other editors' copyedits to maintain the longstanding quality of articles. Seasider53 (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not mind constructive revisions but, the continuous removal of edits/blanking of edits, rather than fixing is pointless. You spend just as much time fixing as blanking/reverting!!   2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You seemingly do, which is why we're here. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss editing gripes. Seasider53 (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh, totally missing the point!   You revert/blank edits, rather than fixing edits made in good faith!  2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * An account is optional!!!!  2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:B822:45EF:F13E:14A1 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Latest revert????? On page Glendaruel.
 * SO[edit]
 * So adding sub-headings and Main Article is now a problem? So is adding Clan Fletcher hereditary at Dunans? So is adding a ref where there was none, also a problem??
 * Really???? Labelled as unconstructive????? 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:9A0:2FD6:BE18:320 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:9A0:2FD6:BE18:320 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am starting to feel that a vendetta is the only way to describe this!!!2A00:23C6:CE0F:6D01:9A0:2FD6:BE18:320 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been declined and is now closed. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

&#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Dougwash reported by User:Zaquezipe (Result: Both blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colombia&oldid=1204807978 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Reversion #1 by Dougwash
 * 2) Reversion #2 by Dougwash
 * 3) Reversion #3 by Dougwash
 * 4) Reversion #4 by Dougwash

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Removal of

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Dougwash

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

Comments:


 * User also engaged in personal attacks due to my name being Zaquezipe within his talk page and my talk page. Also did not show civility and was not willing to listen to my point of view of the matter, kept reverting an estimation that doesn’t try to paint itself as fact but rather a gathering of the sources already used in those pages to be used in the Colombia page. Zaquezipe (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Jabadaba reported by User:Funcrunch (Result: Partially blocked for 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Apparent WP:SPA is repeatedly reinserting unsourced information and removing hatnote link. Note that this page is currently linked from "In the News" under "Recent deaths" on the main page of the English Wikipedia. Funcrunch (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Windawindawinda reported by User:Equine-man (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to Edward VIII"
 * 2)  "Adding alternate name"
 * 3)  "Adding more details, Contributions in another tv show"
 * 4)  "Adding more references"
 * 5)  "Adding references"
 * 6)  "Adding references"
 * 1)  "Adding more references"
 * 2)  "Adding references"
 * 3)  "Adding references"
 * 1)  "Adding references"
 * 2)  "Adding references"
 * 1)  "Adding references"
 * 2)  "Adding references"
 * 1)  "Adding references"
 * 2)  "Adding references"
 * 1)  "Adding references"
 * 2)  "Adding references"
 * 1)  "Adding references"
 * 1)  "Adding references"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on David Windsor."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Ownership of articles on Edward VIII."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Problem editor, COI edits, numerous editors have requested him to stop, yet he continues. Equine-man (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Please stop redirecting David Windsor page(s) to Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor, or Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, Former King of the United Kingdom, it is vandalism Windawindawinda Windawindawinda (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:79.54.217.132 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1205510683 by 2800:430:1202:7B8:F813:AAFF:FE93:9EF (talk) stop the vandalism and go to the discussion page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1205484500 by 190.63.96.117 (talk) No,it says it's similar to kipfler"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1205478607 by 2800:430:1384:A210:1DF:3D5E:E406:953 (talk) vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1205473968 by 190.63.96.117 (talk) No, it's  a different product"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1205467365 by 190.63.96.117 (talk) the references don't say it's Austrian"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1205458142 by 2800:430:1384:A210:1DF:3D5E:E406:953 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1205434598 by 2800:430:1384:A210:1DF:3D5E:E406:953 (talk) Respect the sources and the truth. Don't vandalize"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1205414961 by 2800:430:1384:A210:A098:9FF:FEEC:F41E (talk) vandalisme"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1205182756 by 2800:430:1384:A210:50F0:5FF:FE8F:CFB8 (talk) vandalism"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1205165190 by 2800:430:1384:A210:B887:45FF:FE45:7039 (talk) restore"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 79.54.217.132 */ new section"

Comments:

Restored the same edit to this article five times before someone opened a talk page discussion and I gave this IP a 3RR warning. They gave a cursory reply to that discussion and went on to revert the cornetto article six more times. That article is now protected, but they're still continuing the same kind of behaviour at cappuccino, which they've reverted four times in the past 36 hours. Belbury (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The user, an anonymous IP, started vandalize croissant before reaching any kind of consensus, without you doing anything.
 * And I tried to reason on the discussion page but he refuse to, all while you witness without doing anything.
 * Furthermore, this behaviour remind that of one who was permanently banned from wikipedia 79.54.217.132 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Parthi1200 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Page protected, user blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 2)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 3)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 4)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 5)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 6)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 7)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 8)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 9)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 10)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 11)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 1)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 2)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 3)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 4)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 1)  "/* Early life and background */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on M. G. Ramachandran ‎."

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

Comments:

This user and some IPs keep changing the sourced ethnic background of the subject. We also had a discussion regarding itin the talk page. This user and the IPs were also requested to engage, but they don't seem to listen. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

User:67.1.135.167 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored Carter Blue Star Anchorage and Charity"
 * 2)  "Restored the listing of the Carter Blue Star anchorage and charity"
 * 3)  "/* United States */"
 * 4)  "Reinstated notation of the Carter Blue Star, a recognized Huguenot Anchorage and we have supplied documents"
 * 5)  "The Carter Blue Star of Tucson Arizona is an active Huguenot anchorage and charity established by Clary duBosc Lucas Bass Carter in 2023. This evidence is available through a registered letter to the French Huguenot Church of South Carolina. I recommend that some who says "wikipedia doesn't want me" should .... Leave. Thank you. Clary du Bosc Lucas Bass Carter"
 * 1)  "The Carter Blue Star of Tucson Arizona is an active Huguenot anchorage and charity established by Clary duBosc Lucas Bass Carter in 2023. This evidence is available through a registered letter to the French Huguenot Church of South Carolina. I recommend that some who says "wikipedia doesn't want me" should .... Leave. Thank you. Clary du Bosc Lucas Bass Carter"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Huguenots."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Huguenots."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor adding information about what looks like their own organisation to this article. Mostly unsourced, though the last but one attempt to add the information referenced a self-published document. Tacyarg (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Swajyothi reported by User:Chaotic Enby (Result: Sock blocked)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1206011496

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1206015844
 * 2) Special:Diff/1206017510
 * 3) Special:Diff/1206018634
 * 4) Special:Diff/1206023791
 * 5) Special:Diff/1206025448

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1206026196

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: Special:Diff/1206018481

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1206027934

Comments:

Repeated removal of A7 and BLPPROD templates with no explanations given. Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 01:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:YaquiWoman reported by User:Philipnelson99 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Coyote society"
 * 2)  "Changed false information from individual who are threatened by our existence!"
 * 3)  "Stop changing this information before the Coyotes haunt you!!"
 * 4)  "False information corrected"
 * 5)  "Correct false information! Stop spreading false information or the coyotes will haunt you"
 * 6)  "Fixed the false information regarding this tribe based on the tribe’s own website. Please allow this change, thank you"
 * 7)  "Corrected the false information."
 * 8)  "Corrected false information"
 * 1)  "Corrected the false information."
 * 2)  "Corrected false information"

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

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

Comments:

Discussion took place at the article talk page. Multiple warnings on article talk and user talk about WP:3RR. Reverted after being warned. Also making legal threats. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:فروغ السلطنە reported by User:Aintabli (Result: Blocked 48 hours and alerted to CTOPS)
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 Qajar dynasty."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * I will also be leaving a CTOPS alert on their talk page since their editing was related to a contentious topic (WP:CT/KURD)) Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Halbared reported by User:MapReader (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Reverts at (per GMT) 15:39, 16:50, 17:07 and 17:18 and 17:36; five within a two hour span. 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:

Editor has a track record of trying to force English-over-British descriptors, despite the subjects all being British citizens. On this occasion edits by both an IP editor and myself were reverted repeatedly without discussion, which led directly to a straighforward breach of WP:3RR. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

User:115.42.13.190 reported by User:Leftregister (Result: Both blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Rank structure */ Restored edit distinguishing between ranks and grades within ranks which had included reference to the source (Police Act 1990, previously cited in the article with a link in the infobox) following deletion by disruptive editor who ignored cited reference."
 * 2)  "/* Banner, flag and pennants */ Restored edit which had included quote and reference and link reverted by disruptive editor who ignored that source was cited."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1205578603 by Leftregister (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user has continued his disruptive editing behaviour, refusing to properly discuss and gain consensus for his unsourced edits and constantly reverting back to his own version Leftregister (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Leftregister's objection was accommodated by retainining the flag image identified in their objections but Leftregister continued to revert and make serial objections, even reverting well referenced edits without any specific reason. A date was added to better clarify a statement in my own long-ago edit but Leftregister reverted it. An edit was made quoting and referencing legislation (cited and linked in the article's infobox) but Leftregister reverted it. Leftregister removed a "citation needed" tag without good reason. It is Leftregister's reversions that have been disruptive.


 * User Leftregister was recently blocked for edit warring over the same article (see User talk:Leftregister). Leftregister trolled this editor to other articles and reverted edits made by this editor across different articles. Leftregister identified only one objection to edits to the article - removal of the flag image but reverted all changes made by this editor. Even when the flag image was retained to accommodate Leftregister's objection, they still continued to revert all other edits made by this editor including quotes with reference and links to the source. Edits were broken-down into multiple smaller changes with detailed explanations in edit summaries but Leftregister still wholesale-reverted all changes without reasons for each. Leftregister even reverted changes that provided a reference to legislation (linked in the article's infobox) supporting the changes as the law. What more authoritative reference could be provided? Yet Leftregister's reversion edit summary disingenuously challenged to provide a source. Leftregister rejected modified edits that accommodated their position (see Talk page discussion - Talk:New South Wales Police Force). Leftregister reverted the addition of a date clarifying a statement to what Leftregister claimed was the status quo but that claimed status quo was to a version contributed by this editor that was vague without a date of the legislative change. Such reversions are just disruptive. Leftregister deleted a citation needed tag without good reason. The reasons given for deleting the citation needed tag would validate removing all citation needed tags on Wikipedia. This user has been a long-term contributor to the article, having edited its structure, organization of material and content to much of what Leftregister claims as the status quo, but, after research, this editor came to doubt one element (hence citation needed tag). Leftregister is being disruptive and continues to revert in edit warring. 115.42.13.190 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * . They were both blocked on January 21 for this same edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Gianluigi02 reported by User:33ABGirl (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:

Violation of WP:1RR under WP:ECR. 33ABGirl (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As with the above report, With topics under a 1RR restriction you should err on the side of caution if there is any question as to whether a revert could violate that restriction. In this case your February 12 revert did technically violate the 1RR restriction as it was made after the implementation of 1RR and within 24 hours of your first reverts. Aoidh (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Sinclairian reported by User:33ABGirl (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverting edit(s) by Gianluigi02 (talk) to rev. 1206452636 by Cryptic: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
 * 2)  "No violation of ECR present – Undid revision 1206262219 by 33ABGirl (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Violation of WP:1RR under WP:ECR 33ABGirl (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that ECR had to actually be established before the associated 1RR came into play. The first edit I made (on 11 February) was done before the page actually received any restrictions. Thus, per my reckoning, the rule would only apply to the second edit I made (12 Feb). If I’m wrong or just mistaken in how this works, please let me know, and I’ll abstain from this behavior moving forward. Sinclairian (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This sounds like WP:LAWYERING. WP:ECR and WP:1RR are default guidelines that apply to the designated topics. You were warned about your actions but chose to continue reverting. 33ABGirl (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You are both warned in lieu of being blocked. With topics under a 1RR restriction you should err on the side of caution if there is any question as to whether a revert could violate that restriction. In this case your second reverts technically did violate the 1RR restriction as the second reverts for both of you were made after the implementation of 1RR and within 24 hours of your first reverts. - Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh: The first edit I made was to revert an IP in violation of WP:ECR. My understanding is this is not counted under WP:1RR, according to the edit notice: with respect to the WP:1RR restriction: reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Please inform me if I have misunderstood this. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this edit summary is relevant. Again, if in doubt, err on the side of caution. - Aoidh (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the edit summary you cited is that it was meant to underline the fact that I had reverted a second extended confirmed editor. Are you interpreting that because the original content was added by an extended confirmed editor, reverting an IP's modification of that content would not qualify for the WP:1RR exception? 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I may have looked at one of the diffs wrong. It looked like one IP reverted another, and the initial edit was from an EC editor. With that in mind I don't think there was a violation here, but please keep in mind that citing WP:ECR in this edit summary was not a proper rationale, as the editor you reverted is extended confirmed. - Aoidh (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the clarification. I acknowledge my actions in the cited edit summary was improper and will be more careful in the future. 33ABGirl (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Isi96 reported by User:Skarz (Result: Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellstorm_(film)&oldid=1206372091

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellstorm_(film)&oldid=1206562107
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellstorm_(film)&oldid=1206388117
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellstorm_(film)&oldid=1206372091

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isi96#Hellstorm_(film)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Isi96&oldid=1206565826

Comments:

I have made several edits to the Hellstorm documentary page and they have been reverted multiple times by the same individual. Each time they have put in their comments things claiming that the original page constituted fact and that the film is not a legitimate documentary. This demonstrates the lack of the user's neutrality on the topic. I am not not here to argue about the moral high ground of the subject. I am trying to improve the article for readability and neutrality and my efforts continue to be undone. skarz (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There is editwarring by both editors. I gave both 3RR warnings but only after this was filed. There is an argument about whether the Nazis were the real victims of WWII and one on whether or not the film is a documentary. I'm involved in the argument at User talk:Isi96 Skarz continued to add that it is a documentary after filing this and also went to RPP. As there are only two editors involved, protection won't be neutral. We could either block both or give them both page bans. I don't see the difference between the two so far as the editwarring is concerned. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * And the other editor has now reverted Skarz.   Doug Weller  talk 15:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've self-reverted to Skarz's latest revision. Isi96 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That summary does not accurately represent what the edit reversals were about.My edits have been to:
 * Establish that the claims in the page were the viewpoint of the SPLC as the text is a copy/paste from the linked page
 * Increase neutrality but removing the term "narrative"
 * Differentiate that whatever the film's moral claims are, the events discussed are indeed real factual events.
 * The page continues to have grammatical errors and direct word for word pasts from source articles.Wikipedia: "claims the Nazis had made Germany a happy and hopeful country." Article: "declares that the Nazis have turned Germany into a happy and hopeful country again." (translated from German)Source: https://www.br.de/nachricht/verschwoerung-sekte-klagemauer-tv-100.html skarz (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Make use of the article talk page to resolve this, otherwise, WP:DRN is the next step. The protection is temporary but may be extended upon further edit warring. As for which version to be protected:
 * Information.svg Wikipedia's protection policy does not allow the administrator who instates a page protection because of an ongoing edit dispute to pick a particular version to protect. They have to protect the most recent version; at most they may revert blatant vandalism. In a content dispute it is impossible to make everyone happy; this is not the administrator's fault, it is simply a consequence of the underlying dispute. See The Wrong Version for an essay about this exact type of situation. There is no point in lobbying administrators to edit or revert a protected page, since they are generally not allowed to do that. If you're unhappy about the protected version, the fastest and best way to do something about it is to resolve the content dispute on the talk page and ask for the page to be unprotected. – robertsky (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "They have to protect the most recent version" is a bit of an oversimplification, as
 * ...but this specific page lacks a stable revision because it has been created two days ago. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree Thanks. I agree with both points. We can where appropriate revert to an earlier version. But not here. Doug Weller  talk 21:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree Thanks. I agree with both points. We can where appropriate revert to an earlier version. But not here. Doug Weller  talk 21:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

User:117PXL reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Then 24 hour block for the above edit warring the removal of the pic followed by,
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User was given a 24 hour block for breach of 3RR here then has continued with a further breach of 3RR per the above diffs over the same issue. Also has added in WP:PA...here. The thread on the talk page linked to above seems to indicate a WP:CIR problem with regard to basic WP policies. DeCausa (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:151.37.253.126 reported by User:Remsense (Result: Blocked 31 hours, page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1206745019 by Srnec (talk) Rv. No Blog; No POV; The sources can be consulted online (for example UNIO REGNI AD IMPERIUM). Restoration of previous version based on cited sources. The new changes require sources and discussions and consensus (talk page). The previous version has the cited sources available online and the original reference map"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk page conversation attempted at User talk:151.57.243.54.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Sicily and the infobox map */ new section"

Comments:

Hops across multiple IPs. Remsense 诉  01:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * by User:ScottishFinnishRadish, article also protected for 3 days by ScottishFinnishRadish. Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And they're already block ending already, . ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Derknasnort reported by User:Jtrevor99 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ; "Lede suggestion: add the total that have occurred. It may be possible to autocalc this if we assume 2nd weekend in February going forward.", "Restoring unexplained removal", "Take it to Talk instead of trying to enforce your subjective opinion"

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) ; no edit summary
 * 2) ; "This is useless information. People can add 29+29 themselves, also the Super Bowl is never"
 * 3)  "The Super Bowl has never been referred to as a contest. You can take your subjective opinion to the talk page."

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:

Editor appears to be attempting to WP:OWN this list. Of the last 100 edits, 22 are from this editor; 15 of those are reversions of other editors, and at least 11 were done with no edit summary. (And many of those that do have edit summaries, in my subjective opinion, are either insufficient or hostile.) The sentence in question here appears to me pertinent information for a list article - I could cite several WP lists that include totals in the lead, and/or Google stats on the frequency of searches for the total - which is sufficient reason to at least discuss the point. But this editor has refused to participate in any discussion on the topic, bizarrely telling me to "take your subjective opinion to the Talk Page" in the most recent revert, when I already had done so. Rather than cross the line on 3RR, I'm bringing this here so the editor learns WP:consensus building is necessary. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You made one post to the talk page, but you didn't get a consensus for new material. He hasn't breached WP:3RR yet, although he is on the cusp.  You both are equally at fault here, but in his case, he is trying to maintain the status quo in an article that gets a lot of superfluous edits.  The irony is that you are saying you are bringing it here so he learns that consensus building is necessary, but you are the one that is refusing to get a consensus for your changes.  It's kind of a gaslighting thing.  Looking back, his version seems to be the consensus version, so I suggest you leave it be until you find a consensus for the change on the talk page, as you are edit warring at least as much as he is, and opening yourself up to be blocked as well.  Dennis Brown 2&cent; 04:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first addition of the sentence was justified via WP:BOLD. The second was justified due to no edit summary-had the editor simply stated they were restoring the status quo pending a discussion, I would have been satisfied. The third occurred when the editor made clear they had no interest participating in Talk or building a consensus. My invitation on Talk - made prior to that third one - explicitly states that I will not restore again if the editor will simply discuss it with myself and others. So at worst only one of my three edits perhaps was unjustifiable. Since I explicitly stated a desire to work with the other editor on this, and a willingness to abide by consensus regardless of what it is, "gaslighting" seems an inappropriate descriptor. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I realized this wasn't in the above links. It's pertinent here: []
 * You might want to read WP:BRD. Your first addition being BOLD is fine, but once it gets Reverted out, you then should go to the talk page and Discuss, which is how the process works.  If you want to abide by consensus, then leave the consensus version IN until a new consensus forms.  And gaslighting is when you blame someone of doing something that you yourself are doing, so it is a proper description.  You are the one trying to edit against an established consensus, not him.  Trying to force your changes against consensus is the definition of edit warring. The burden is on you to demonstrate a new consensus, which can take days or weeks to achieve.  You can argue all your want, but policy is pretty clear on this.  Dennis Brown 2&cent; 04:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was in fact what I was trying to accomplish. I was not trying to war with Jtrevor99. You can see that I wasn't because he also had made a change just under the one I had undo where his description is "Personal preference; I think this looks better". I did not even undo this post as I didn't see that it was nessary, but the following post seemed a pattern of "personal preference". Derknasnort (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please use edit summaries next time. The lack of an edit summary, and ignoring my request to discuss (which may have been, admittedly, simply due to the speed of edits and not intentional on your part), made it appear you were trying to enforce YOUR personal preference unilaterally. I had no intention of trying to force the edit in or edit war, but you appeared to be refusing to discuss or provide reasonable justification for the removal. Meanwhile, this all appeared to be a misunderstanding. Thank you both for your time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This needs to go to the talk page, and neither of you need to make any more edits for at least 24 hours, and instead discuss the possible changes. I would rather not block anyone, but this is on the cusp of an edit war; one that is totally unnecessary.  Dennis Brown 2&cent; 04:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. Derknasnort (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you and agreed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * and now moving on. Dennis Brown 2&cent; 04:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:92.15.214.198 reported by User:Bri (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [not done]

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

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

Comments:

Difficult to deal with this, or even to notify them properly as they are editing with varying IP addresses (I assume it's the same editor).

There is a warning on the IP's talkpage from User:Liz regarding logged-out editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * for one week. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LingoSouthAsia reported by User:Saqib (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Saqib I agreed on removal of results with you. You objected to Pakistan Today Newspapers link. Now you re inserting the same para with Dawn News paper. I mean stay with concensus achieved on talk page"
 * 2)  "Placing provisional results in results section above rigging allegations as per Talk page discussion"
 * 3)  "Restored as per request of User Jamal Abdul USA R Bizusa of relibaly sourced Election surveys and results"
 * 4)  "/* Results */ Provincial"
 * 5)  "Restored reliably sourced version"
 * 6)  "/* Results */ Allegation of rigging were placed here while actual results were missing so added actual results"
 * 7)  "/* Results */"
 * 8)  "/* Results */"
 * 9)  "/* Results */"
 * 10)  "/* Allegations of rigging */"
 * 1)  "/* Allegations of rigging */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding original research on 2024 Pakistani general election."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on 2024 Pakistani general election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Adding OR and citing unreliable references. Removing warnings on the talk page. And making false claims as usual on talk page discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Admin please see the 2024 Pakistani general election Talk page section Final result  and 2024 Pakistani general election revision history. Saqib is involved in vandalism and removing sourced content repaetedly. I warned him that I will report you on Admin notice board but He is edit warring and rushed here to report me first. If he has content dispute he may raise it on Content dispute resolution notice board. Read these two reliably sourced paras  as follows;


 * 1. Opinion polling near elections by top Pakistani election surveyors namely Gallup Pakistan, Institute of Public Opinion Research (IPOR) and IRIS showed that PMLN has regained its position against its rival PTI since June 2023, mainly due to return of Nawaz Sharif from exile and Supreme court’s decision disallowing bat symbol. As contrary to the general perception in the social and traditional media PMLN has emerged most popular party in Punjab province which have majority of seats in Pakistan National assembly comparable with 2013's elections when they received 41% of votes and now, they are standing around the same level at 45%. Whereas PTI support is steady at 35% as comparing to last July 2018 elections in Punjab.


 * 2.  Unofficial results showed PTI-backed Independents won in 92 constituencies, with PML-N leading in 79, and PPP leading in 54. Others led in 40 seats.


 * You may check status and reputation of top Pakistani surveyors Gallup Pakistan, IPOR and IRIS communication, as well Pakistan today news paper one of leading english media house. Why such reliably sourced content is repeatedly being removed with false edit summeries. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * None of these references verifies your claims you trying to add to the page, repeatedly and it is you who adding OR, citing unreliable sources, not me. Pinging with whom you was edit warring. --Saqib (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is not my OR this is also re confirmed by this link from Pakistan leading newspaper Jang on its official website with top journalist Umer Cheema [ . I can add many other source confirming the content of these two paras from diffrent reliable sources. Admin can check reputation of Jang group and umer Cheema. This article is in urdu language and can be translated in to english to verfiy the content.  LingoSouthAsia (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User being reported reinserted 3 paragraphs and 1 sentence relating to allegations of electoral fraud and electoral results without providing a source. In a 4th paragraph, they restored two highly discouraged sources (Facebook, one of which was improperly titled Facebook) despite having already a proper reliable source. The opinion polling paragraph I removed not because of concerns of its verifiability per se but because it was written in such abominable English that raised concerns on whether this was possible WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or plain PR disguised as an encyclopedic edit. Furthermore I had understood that there had been consensus to remove this days before. Borgenland (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My only demand for said user is that they provide adequate references that prove whatever it is they are writing and observe proper grammar to prevent anyone else from raising suspicions especially in this contentious election. Borgenland (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Borgenland for your comments. I added only 2 paras as reproduced above. I dont know about other two paras containing facebook links. If one para (survey) had poor grammer then that could have been gramatically improved rather then deleting with 3 reliable sources that amounts to vandalism. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, nothing like an article about a contentious election in a contentious topic area that yields a surprising result (I can only imagine that some Pakistani general went out and angrily yelled "KHAAAAAAAANNNN!" into the sky on election night, and the whole of the country heard it, and it was picked up by a satellite as well ) to end up here. After trying to untwine the diffs above as best I can, I concur with above that this is more a case of an editor not providing proper sourcing for their edits (indeed, there are long swaths of unsourced text in some of these diffs) than edit warring. I really think you guys should, as you have suggested, give it a go on the talk page rather than trying to work it out with edit summaries. Full protection would, of course, force that discussion but I would only do it if it were requested by the parties as I am rather loathe to do this on my own initiative, not just generally but especially in the wake of the just-concluded election mentioned above. This disposition should not be taken to foreclose any administrative action if this behavior on the page continues. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2a02:6b68:10:4e00:24f7:1ed4:8a8:23d8 reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: IP blocked 48 hours for disruption )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bigg Boss (Telugu season 6)

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

Comments:

This IP editor takes an all-or-nothing approach to the content they want to include, which was initially removed by myself more than a year ago and since then by User:Ravensfire (6 January, 23 May, 1 June) and User:Girth Summit (11 May). They alternately revert to their preferred version or WP:POINTily remove the entire section, even the helpful parts. Their posts on the talk page are vague and rambling, showing no understanding of key policies such as WP:CONSENSUS or WP:NOT, even after being warned that a report here was imminent. As they have clearly breached 3RR, and have ignored a request to self-revert, a block of some kind is probably necessary. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * To be honest you still dont understand its not fancruft. Your just making things worst by removing content on the page for no reason and not willing to understand. It was fine before you showed up. I have made my clear points in the talk page which your ignoring time and time again with your useless comments. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also you have breached the revert rule as well as you reverted edits on that page six times. It should stay END OF. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No move on and leave it on the page. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In this very edit you removed a different piece of content in the article, saying "according to a user who is lying this is fancruft when its not" in the edit summary. This is called disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, which is also not allowed besides the constant reversions you made on the page despite no consensus being formed in favour of them. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  09:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I am very sorry I should of not used that type of language, but the user removed everything else in the page. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make my point clear that it is not fancruft. I have even gave proof after researching about it of another discussion that happened years ago and still the user ignored my views. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The other "discussion" referenced (link here) is simply a 2018 monologue from one editor, which in no way represents a consensus of any sort. Their replies here are consistent with their behaviour at the talk page—insults such as "your ignoring time and time again with your useless comments", a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia process (here WP:3RR, there WP:CONSENSUS), a desire to implement their perceived ownership of the article, and an inability to reply in a single comment. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you see many users agreed to the tables being put there as its not fancruft read ahead. And I dont claim to won the page I am just putting whats right. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So it should stay you should give up now and move on to something else. Kindly take my advice. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Own
 * 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also how come no one removed the tables before you came back in 2022. The reason is because other experiences users also left it as they relised its not fancruft. You decided to come on wikipedia two years back and delete everything without even talking about in on the talk page back then. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * , disruptive editing. Dennis Brown 2&cent; 10:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:KamBookerHZ reported by User:Chelsdog (Result: Blocked 72h)
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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I don't think any professional football team in the world would count their U13, U14, U16 academy, and women's teams' honors and claim themselves as so-called Twelve Champions. This is Wikipedia not Kitchee fancruft. The inclusion of such "information" is unnecessary and obviously should not be written.

I tried to discuss and explain the case on the talk page. However, refused to talk and responded with personal attacks. And he reverted every single edit I made without any explanation. He brought too much fans' emotion into this. I hope administrators can intervene and make a fair judgment.

Chelsdog (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring and personal attacks, which happens to be the only time KamBookerHZ has ever said anything on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:103.2.135.33 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First revert - 10:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Second revert - 10:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) Third revert - 11:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) Fourth revert - 11:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) Fifth revert - 16:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Disruptive editing warning, level 3 by me, message by User:Dāsānudāsa, edit warring warning by me

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of discussion started by me, diff of response by User:Dāsānudāsa

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

Comments:

Hello. I'm having a bit of trouble trying to resolve a dispute with this 103.2.135.33 IP user. They keep changing the name of the subject in the article to include honorifics and suffixes. They also keep removing some certain sourced section of the article without adequate explanation as shown in the first and fifth revert diffs. I've warned them about disruptive editing, and later on User:Dāsānudāsa and I have both written our own messages on their user talk as shown in the diffs above, informing them about how content disputes are properly resolved as well as about the Wikipedia edit warring policy.

I have started a discussion on the talk page, and the fellow user Dāsānudāsa has written their response about why the article shouldn't have the proper name / honorifics. However, despite our efforts to invite them in the talk page discussion, the IP editor just keeps repeating the name-change edits instead. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  00:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A pretty easy call to make when the user was given a final warning for edit warring a day or two ago that they ignored. Since the IP has previously been blocked as a proxy, and since the article is within a contentious topic area, I have gone with a longer block than usual. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:67.68.179.139 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Both users blocked from article 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]

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

Comments:

Repeated insertion of badly worded content and previously warned for edit warring. Barry Wom (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * from article. This was an issue that could have been resolved through discussion. Despite the usual entreaties to take it to talk, no thread was ever opened there. If you continue to revert an edit warrior without good reason, you are an edit warrior as well. Since I have, as it turns out, blocked Barry for 3RR within the last year, I am going with this length for both editors, and limiting it to only this article since it's the only one where this happened. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Angryskies reported by User:Arebeebank (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  30 April 2023
 * 2)  10 August 2023
 * 3)  13 October 2023
 * 4)  15 January 2024
 * 5)  22 January 2024
 * 6)  13 February 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not applicable, isn't specific to one article, applies to many articles with multiple editors having attempted communication about the issue with the editor via their talk page as explained below.

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

Comments:

This is long term issue with editor having an obsession about adding UK to infobox fields incorrectly. Multiple editors have pointed this out to the editor over a number of years and have tried to counsel on their talk page, e.g. in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, but in each case editor just deleted without replying and carried on, , ,.

Other examples where this has occurred are at BBC, Deloitte and NatWest Group. Editor was blocked for one month in November 2022 for some of the same reasons, but seemingly has not learnt from this. Arebeebank (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is more suitable for WP:ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User:LindaBresonik reported by User:Meters (Result: Indef'ed for vandalism)
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 German-occupied Europe."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "map of German occupied territory"

Comments:

Unexplained removal of a map, with 4 additional reverts of same edit. Similar behaviour on German colonization of Africa, Religion in Europe, and Irreligion in Germany but has not crossed 3RR yet. Meters (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And now fifth and sixth reverts , after this 3RR report was opened. Meters (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor has now broken 3RR on Religion in Europe too, with     in slightly over one hour. Meters (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * indef'ed by user: HJ Mitchell for vandalism. Appears to actually be Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder Meters (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd seen them somewhere before. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User:88.244.93.164 reported by User:Will120 (Result: Updated)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Come on, send a letter to "Imbros" and see if it is delivered."
 * 2)  "Try sending a letter to "Imbros" or "Tenedos" and see if they will arrive to the destination. Their Turkish names are "Gökçeada" and "Bozcaada". The German atrocities in Rhodes are historic facts, do some research."
 * 3)  "Which part of it is inaccurate?"
 * 4)  "/* Modern Period */"
 * 1)  "/* Modern Period */"
 * 1)  "/* Modern Period */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing."
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

unsourced content reverts Will120 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Will120, which part of WP:3RRNO and which part of WP:ROLLBACKUSE apply? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User was inserting unsourced content, specifically regarding the image description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will120 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't find "inserting unsourced content" at WP:3RRNO nor at WP:ROLLBACKUSE; are you sure this is a justification? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * They were being also tagged as "possible vandalism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will120 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Nominator's rollback permission removed. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * is evading their block.
 * . Rollback permissions restored. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * . Rollback permissions restored. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Jaymailsays reported by User:Nullh1ve (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * as article is in a contentious topic and edits are directly related to it (GENSEX) Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Expocase and User:Azphalt reported by User:Czello (Result: Expocase blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Expocase


 * 1)  "Undid revision 1208116935 by Azphalt (talk) RV NgfUK sock"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1208113303 by Azphalt (talk) then stop removing sources from the body, and stop readding a bullshit infobox you were block for nearly 12 months ago"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1208108618 by Azphalt (talk) RV NgfUK sock"
 * 4)  "RV NgfUK sockpuppets. Restore extensive sourcing. Remove speculation and non-NPOV"

Azphalt


 * 1)  "It's funny to call someone a sock when it's already been proven that I'm not"
 * 2)  "rv"
 * 3)  "Please stop with rv"
 * 4)  "RV probably sock from Orochmen cannot confirm it"

Comments:

I'm not really sure what's happening here – two new users both edit warring and accusing each other of being sockpuppets. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems that Expocase is likely a sock of and . They accuse Azphalt of being a sock of . — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * NgfUK is  whose edits are what Azphalt has been restoring. 31.219.132.7 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I blocked Expocase. I don't know if Azphalt is a sock, so I've taken no action. Another administrator has ECB-proected the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the 31. IP above, also Orchomen. Azphalt was found to be unrelated at the Normalguy SPI, so there's nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my first reading was merely cursory. It appeared to me that Expocase was making extraordinary claims and personal attacks in edit summary, but not being certain I put out the fire, knowing we could always relook at it later. Thanks for the Expocase block. I was interrupted IRL and didn't have time to be certain. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Jamarr81 reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1208470032 by Aquillion (talk)"
 * 2)  "Restored from a malicious reversion."
 * 3)  "Vandalism. Undid revision 1208292406 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
 * 4)  "Restoring previous reorganization and disambiguation efforts between Masculism and Masculinism, due to vandalism. Please do NOT delete the section on Masculinism again and take individual changes to Talk."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ct alert (gg); notices related to personal attacks and edit warring"
 * 2)   "/* 3RR violation on Masculism. */ new section"

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

Comments:

As the edit summaries show, they've also persistently characterized any objections as vandalism and have generally refused to WP:AGF, even as multiple editors have objected to their fairly drastic rewrite of the lead and article. Their response to the most recent warning was, for some reason, to copy-paste it to my talk page. --Aquillion (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * They've also accused me of edit warring and personal attacks, and have refused to explain either accusation. The content they keep edit warring to restore includes unsourced stuff like (bold added)
 * Attempts to reason with them at talk have not gone well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Jiske890 and User:ComparingQuantities reported by User:Arjayay (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

Not a standard edit warring report - 2 editors who are going around endlessly reverting each others edits - just 2 examples shown in the edit histories above I haven't listed the diffs as there would be 60 of them just on these 2 articles and there are other articles as well - Arjayay (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Jiske890 as a sock. I'll let another administrator review CQ's conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * for the excessive edit warring as well as personal attacks. Aoidh (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2605:B40:13E7:F600:4853:7CAA:3670:F77 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1208522201 by Elvisisalive95 (talk) PLEASE DO NOT JUST REVERT See Talk:Metal-Head"
 * 2)  "Seriously though, this is 100% plot"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1208518032 by Elvisisalive95 (talk) Please see my previous summary"
 * 4)  "True, they are *technically* non-primary, but they might as well be primary; they are completely in-universe plot"

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

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

Comments:
 * /64 blocked. Their explanations for their edits on talk are spectacularly unconvincing. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I was replying to @Pppery’s attack at @Daniel Case accusing them of favoritism when they deleted their comment but i’ll still reply. As i said at Talk:Metal-Head, I was patrolling recent changes dealing with IPs engaging in identical behavior, i came across another IP blanking a page prior to a consensus. I warned them & they continue to blank the page. I was not coming from a place of bad faith. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Stromzfiber reported by User:Wikishovel (Result: Sock blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Citation being added"
 * 2)  "Proper Citation added, crucial information for Pakistani historians."
 * 1)  "Proper Citation added, crucial information for Pakistani historians."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Stromzfiber's edits so far have only been adding unsourced puffery to Mushtaq Chhapra (and List of Pakistanis by net worth ), reverting not only my and User:Drmies' removals of unsourced claims, but also fixes to references etc. User:Stromzfiber has also not yet replied about what looks like sockpuppetry by new SPA User:Wikibot1947:,. Wikishovel (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir, edits made have been cited and are historical and widely known factual information in Pakistan. Furthermore I appreciate the help for proper guidance and understand how to adhere to community guidelines.
 * best regards,
 * Geo Stromzfiber (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

User:91.148.94.117 reported by User:ExclusiveEditor (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1208968727 by DrowssapSMM (talk)no sense for this section, at least not on this page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1208968065 by DrowssapSMM (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1208967372 by DrowssapSMM (talk)these guys won nothing for albania, many are not from albania and many never played for albania"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1208967035 by ExclusiveEditor (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1208947552 by ThaddeusSholto (talk)these guys won nothing for albania, many are not from albania"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Albania at the Olympics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Albania at the Olympics."

Comments:
 *  Malinaccier ( talk ) 18:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Horatius At The Bridge reported by User:Thenightaway (Result: Page protected)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  12 Feb
 * 2)  12 Feb
 * 3)  15 Feb
 * 4)  15 Feb
 * 5)  16 Feb
 * 6)  16 Feb (Violation of 3RR)

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 editor keeps removing multiple paragraphs of long-standing reliably sourced content while refusing to explain what specifically is inaccurate in the content. The editor vaguely claims that the content is vandalism, racist or that the multiple reliable sources do not specifically mention the subject of the article (they all explicitly mention the subject). The editor was warned about their 3RR violation, but refuses to self-revert. Thenightaway (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi (and ), you'll need a third opinion or an RfC, not further reverts. WP:BLPRESTORE applies and the content may not be restored without consensus.
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The user has offered no specific examples of what's wrong with the content aside from falsely claiming that the subject is not mentioned in any of the sources (the subject is mentioned in every source). How are these good-faith BLP objections? Thenightaway (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The concerns voiced in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1206707030 and on the talk page (current revision) go beyond verifiability concerns. This seems to be a question of whether the content has due weight, and such conflicts are not resolvable by treating the other user as a liar and vandal (questioning their good faith). You may be completely right about whether the content should be included, but the approach is unsuitable to BLP editing. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful comments in clarifying my objection to the newspaper sources cited should have been in terms of Due Weight/NPOV.
 * I believe they are referencing articles which manufactured defamatory claims as part of a 10 year reputational damage campaign against Man City by its commercial rivals and their client media. It is however carefully planned and coordinated so sadly no surprise to see the unfounded allegations extend into Wikipedia.
 * https://www.theguardian.com/football/sheikh-mansour
 * As a declared supporter of the football club concerned I do understand that my own NPOV is questionable and it would be better if others took this attempt to protect the pages forward.
 * Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. I am not going to start a lengthy elaborate process to determine whether reliably sourced content can be included on the page. You get your way: all negative content can be whitewashed from the page. Apparently, your reasons (all RS are engaged in a conspiracy against the subject and inaccurately claiming that none of the sources mention the subject) count as good-faith BLP objections. Thenightaway (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a ten year reputational damage campaign by commercial rivals and "client media" - unless you can provide evidence of it? What it actually is is factual information that you dislike, showing the large-scale Sportswashing that Manchester City and Sheikh Mansour have been participating in since 2009.
 * The Guardian, The Athletic, The Times, The Independent, Amnesty International and UEFA. Are you claiming that all of these organisations and outlets are 'client media' of your 'commercial rivals' aka other clubs? Because that seems extremely unlikely to me.
 * I understand that, as a supporter of Abu Dhabi FC, you might not like critical coverage of your football team, but the fact is these are legitimate news sources and all have relevance to the articles. ScouseSocialist (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(The edit warring noticeboard is unsuitable for discussions about the article's content. That should probably be discussed at Talk:Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan instead.) &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The user is currently engaging in canvassing on outside forums to help him "protect Man City/Sheikh Mansour etc pages" At what point is it clear that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia?Thenightaway (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be very interesting to know where their IP address is based. It smells of a deliberate campaign to remove negative press, probably by a PR agency hired by the club or its government owners. ScouseSocialist (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

User:웬디러비 reported by User:Ecrusized (Result: Blocked from page for three months)
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:

Repeatedly reverting conflicts of Syrian civil war from the template in the span of one month. Discussion not leading anywhere despite being clearly told that the conflicts are a part of the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war and US intervention in the Syrian civil war. Ecrusized (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * from article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel CaseIf you read debate, Ecrusized also didn't give the main reason why those incidents are included in " Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war" and he even didn't mention "US intervention in the Syrian civil war" in those debate, which means he also makes false reason. i asked him why he thought he is thinking this article is included as part of  Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, but the answer was "it is  Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war". Dear Administrator, I think Ecrusized should be blocked well, if I am blocked because neither of us didn't give a sufficient effort to discuss article sincerely. Wendylove (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking over that discussion again it seems he was showing more good faith than you. Granted he shouldn't have been reverting so much while discussing, but then you went to the extent of resuming just because he hadn't answered you in a long time. You could have gone to his talk page, or pinged him ... but you did neither. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree and admit that I didn't ping him nor talked in his page. But what I thought at that time was that he threatened me to block my edit, because he didn't reply to my answer as well. What I just wanted to ask was "There is no evidence that 'that the conflicts are a part of the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war and US intervention in the Syrian civil war.' so give me the evidence about it". And his reply was "it is the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war."
 * I searched the other articles related to this article. There was no mention about it. Neither Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war nor  US intervention in the Syrian civil war mentioned about it. Neither of them. He just kept saying it is the part of them, but he didn't give the resources. For my perspective, he just forced me to agree with his opinion.
 * Okay, I would admit this block, but I want same measure to Ecrusized as well. I didn't know how this "Edit Warring" works exactly, but what I keep saying is, he also give a point to Edit warring. Please consider that as well. Wendylove (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Oz346 and User:Petextrodon reported by User:Cossde (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Oz346  (cited content removed)
 * 2) Oz346  (cited content removed)
 * 3) Oz346  (cited content removed)
 * 4) Petextrodon  (cited content removed)

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:

Both Oz346 and Petextrodon, has been reverting content that I have been adding with citations. Cossde (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The above user has reverted the content 4 times, , and, whereas, I have asked for a Third opinion, and refrained from making any further reverts. Oz346 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * After which Petextrodon has proceeded to revert. Cossde (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That was my first revert but your last one was your fourth, even after being warned about edit warring and while in middle of a discussion and a third party opinion request. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Both Oz346 and Petextrodon has been preventing my content additions with selectively removing content that they do not agree with. Petextrodon reverted my last additions after Oz346 third party opinion request. I made a request for admin attention several days ago. Cossde (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that it seems the sides are at an impasse. You need to get other editors involved to reach a consensus. I see one of you requested 3O, but I would also suggest bringing it up on the relevant project talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I declined the 3O because there are three editors involved, and I suggested they use the WP:DRN. Temporary full protection of the article might be an option, but maybe there hasn't been enough article space back and forth to justify it. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Sparklecitylover reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Image-related vandalism on Sparkle City."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked as a VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

User:100.17.31.228 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP repeatedly reverting to preferred version of Cast listing despite multiple warnings (that they may not be seeing). DonIago (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Same behavior can be seen at X2 (film), where they are likewise reverting to a preferred version of a cast list that is not MOS compliant; I left an initial explanation on their talkpage explaining why their edits were being reverted. As DonIago states, they may not be aware of talkpage messages; however, they are certainly aware that they have been (almost) daily reinstating their edits. Grandpallama (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The IP has continued to edit this article while the report was open, without making any response or using any talk pages. The majority of their last 50 edits have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Jab1998 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The US permanently defeated the pirates once and for all in 1815"
 * 2)  "The us won the Barbary wars.  The second and final war was an irrefutable American victory and ended the conflict period once and for all"
 * 1)  "The US permanently defeated the pirates once and for all in 1815"
 * 2)  "The us won the Barbary wars.  The second and final war was an irrefutable American victory and ended the conflict period once and for all"
 * 1)  "The us won the Barbary wars.  The second and final war was an irrefutable American victory and ended the conflict period once and for all"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Barbary Wars."
 * 2)   "/* February 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* February 2024 */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* February 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

They have admitted that their first edit was a revert. They know that because they have been arguing about the same on the First Barbary War for a while. Incidentally, I happened to agree with them on the result of that war (see my comment there), but since this article is more complicated and doesn't need the optional result or a useless edit war, I asked them to seek consensus for it, but they refused and kept edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 5R (against two editors) and counting. M.Bitton (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Desmay reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1209656563 by VQuakr (talk) nope"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1209656067 by VQuakr (talk) sentence is cited"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1209636447 by VQuakr (talk) zero consensus to blank section"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of Personal Life Section */ re"

Comments:
 * I'll leave this to the 3R experts, but I did just warn Desmay and their partner for the continued BLP violations. BTW I've rarely seen a user talk page with so many DS warnings--was the BLP warning in that effusive bouquet? Drmies (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been an editor since 2003 with a clean block log. I didn't see your warning until after this report was filed. For what it's worth, rather than being blocked, I will not revert anymore and in fact, I will just not edit this article again. desmay (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's User talk:Desmay, but it was delivered 14 years ago. VQuakr (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * desmay, thank you, and I think I exaggerated the number of DS warnings on your talk page. I appreciate the note. For the record, I am not looking to block either Desmay or the other one--the article is now protected, so further disruption is unlikely. But Desmay, please be mindful that the BLP applies throughout the project, so also on AfDs, talk pages, etc. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , my gratitude goes to you. I won't be touching the article again. desmay (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * for the rest of the day by Ponyo. The editors involved also seem to have settled this amicably. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Mr vili reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 2)  "A source about his children is not WP:EXTRAORDINARY, additionally you have also removed a number of sources throughout your editing that backed up the statement regarding his children, which I will be restoring with additional sources afterwards. If you wish to argue this, please do on the talk page"
 * 3)  "Please cite reasons as why you believe tuko.co.ke is not a reliable source"
 * 4)  "Add hair transplant section back?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* February 2024 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of Personal Life Section */ re"

Comments:
 * Something about the Tates just brings out everyone swinging, it seems. I can take this to BLPN if the tag teaming seems better suited to more watchers instead of AN3, just LMK. VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I believe it is VQuakr who is edit warring here, Tate is known to have undergone a hair transplantation surgery - there are atleast 5 sources that credibly verify this - I believe Tristan Tate has also stated this himself a few times.
 * He has been repeatedly removing otherwise reliable sources with no justification besides citing "unreliability" with no explanation.
 * Sections I wrote on his children are not unreliable, OR controversial, are well sourced, and Tristan Tate himself has confirmed he has children. Mr Vili   talk  00:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Mr vili, when you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've fully-protected the article for 24 hours. WP:BLP is a complicated policy; "I have a source so my info sticks" is not the foundation on which the policy is built.-- Ponyo bons mots 00:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that was the right thing to do. Anyhow I'm pretty much done with this article, my original intention was merely to send it through AfD to gain community consensus. I suppose we will await consensus in the talk page. Mr Vili   talk  02:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It had sufficient consensus as not ready for mainspace considering that it had been declined at AfC seven times (!) and was blatantly not ready for mainspace as a BLP, before you dragged me to dispute resolution for declining and asked a third party to break the main rule of AfC and submit it anyway so it could immediately get AfD'd. And since it was not ready for mainspace as a BLP, which has a bunch of other considerations about sourcing, it forced a bunch of people to do work for you that was not addressed in the draft. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * for the rest of the day by, per report on other editor. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

User:38.65.249.252 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1209845968 by Augmented Seventh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was blocked earlier in the month for 72 hours for persistent addition of unsourced content to this BLP. User has added the same content twice since block expired. Has not been receptive to warning on talk page, responding "Citing common knowledge is redundant and unnecessary. Stop trolling". Tacyarg (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Jabadaba reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1210052749 by Bedivere (talk)Please stop erasing my edits. This is to describe his influence. You will find similar on pages such as Whitney Houston and Jimi Hendrix. And more will be added to that section."
 * 2)  "Influence."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
 * 2)   "Warning: Ownership of articles."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Just back from a two week block for edit warring and ownership of the article. Seems like they haven't learned Bedivere (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This is not true. To describe someone's influence or legacy, most wikipedia pages I come across do add what media or people have expressed about them. That is constructive, and hence very common, editing. Bedivere should get a warning because he does nothing but deleting. Jabadaba (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Elijahtree reported by User:Fred Zepelin (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1209921723 by Fred Zepelin (talk) Report filed against User: Fred Zepelin. Do not undo this revert, instead complain to the administrators at WP:ANI, a notice as been posted to your talk page. thanks!"
 * 2)  "changed gettyimage citation, was receiving a complaint"
 * 3)  "Victims of War section, cleanup."
 * 4)  "re-added Hafid, and Abdul-Jabbar to the Notable Clan Members list. Please do not remove anyone from the Notable Clan list if you personally do not know them. This is an Arab tribe and these people are a lot more known compared the the other two in the Arab regions. If you do not come from an Arab background please do not assume you know best and just remove people for not having a Wikipedia page on the English directory."
 * 1)  "Victims of War section, cleanup."
 * 2)  "re-added Hafid, and Abdul-Jabbar to the Notable Clan Members list. Please do not remove anyone from the Notable Clan list if you personally do not know them. This is an Arab tribe and these people are a lot more known compared the the other two in the Arab regions. If you do not come from an Arab background please do not assume you know best and just remove people for not having a Wikipedia page on the English directory."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Al-Duraji."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Al-Duraji."
 * 3)   "/* February 2024 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* February 2024 */ new section"

Comments:

"new" user who just filed a remarkably well-formatted complaint against me at ANI. Started their account 19 February, SPA, I noticed a great many problems with POV, improper citations, image sizes, just to name a few. I reverted most of the questionable edits and fixed a few myself, requesting that the editor discuss their changes on the talk page. This was ignored, and user continued to revert even after I warned them about 3RR. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To give the reviewer a quick snapshot of this editor's attitude, here's a message they left on my talk page 3 minutes ago. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * this was a joke, i was being playful. Elijahtree (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * never claimed to be new, I have already told you once and will tell you again. I have been locked out of my old account "wikihelper" where you can see the slow increments I added to that page, maybe they can check IPs and prove that, not sure what your insinuating.
 * This user attempting to ban me from a page I have been working on for quite a few years is insane, I am not sure what in the world his problem is administrators please ask this user what I did wrong. He has not explained anything to be and is trying to boss me around. Please take a look at the history logs and see for your self! Elijahtree (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see this user it attemping to insinuating I am a paid editor due to my complaint against him unfairly attempting to force me out of making edits. I am not sure how to respond to this report without seemingly disrespecting the moderator in some accidental manner. I reported him first and, yes, wrote a comprehensive response showing I haven't done any ill will. Instead of the moderators being appreciative that, at least I thought, I made their life a little easier by giving them everything they need and them not needing to go through and investigate. The reponse I received was basically this moderator who very much didn't like me at all, the same way the only the only thing i can point blame to this persons actions is he just genuinely does not like me for some reason? I don't get why he is doing all of this. if you want to see everything please feel free. You can see my confusion throughout.
 * here is pagelinks:
 * and here is my logs:
 * I am not going to write a long response since I learnt that admins do not really look on overexplaining fondly, please check everything for yourself. Elijahtree (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In a show of goodwill and WP:AGF on my part, if you really mean all of what you just said, I will withdraw this report IF you 1) self-revert your previous revert and 2) open a talk page discussion at the appropriate place. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm now reconsidering that, having read the diatribe over at ANI in which Elijahtree accuses me of being "pro-jewish", "Pro-Israel", "anti-Arab", and other such nonsense. I'd like to thank Remsense for actually reading that attack in detail earlier and replying with a summation that is more cogent than I could've managed. Remsense points out that Elijahtree is WP:NOTHERE, which I have to agree with. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you look through the logs, you will see it was created by Wiki-Helper. This is me, I have not been able to log into that account and I pray you can check this somehow. IPs? Asking me to prove something?, not sure. I promise when I say this, I am in absolutley no way saying this as a "this is my page" scenario, But I built this page from the ground up, sourced the images, tried to style it and sometimes failed, etc. Never in the history of me editting this page, and other pages, have I met someone who pops out of the blue and tries to find a way to kick me out. I have known this user for a day and he has been hounding me without giving me any information, this is the first time I get reasons and you will see through my main complaint, I complained that he was trying to scare me into submission, without even telling me what I was doing wrong. He is now finally saying that he seeings "POVs", which is absurd, seeing that my first few edits I spent toning the article down to sound more neutral.
 * so for your convenience reviewer, to respond to this claims:
 * 1."well formatted ani, started on 19th of feb" = i believe, if you take into account my original user, I have been on wp for maybe a year or so longer than this user, I am not a new user. hopefully reviewer can prove that by looking into the account
 * 2. "POV issues" = i will leave that in the hands of the reviewer to decide.
 * 3. "improper citations" = this is probably right, I do make stupid mistakes sometimes, including not know in the past that I can't use youtube citations. Which is why when you removed the entire Kuwait section, (it did have all YT citations) not once did i revert such a edit. I understood that I had to rewrite. I just returned the 2 notable members you removed for no reason.
 * 4. "image sizes" = also probably right, I try my best to style the page in a professional yet nice manner, I even personally created the chloropleth map at an attempt add a little flair to the page. the images are not too big right now? and if someone edits the page styling it or giving me advice, of course that is something I have always loved!
 * 5. "i ignored??" = nonsense claim, you told me verbatim "take to talk page", I have never been through such a an experience before, as seen by the barren land that is the talk page. I assumed you were referring to my user talk page, which i felt like i was being ignored. why couldn't you just give me heads up telling me wrong talk page? you assumed I was new too. smh
 * 6. "pro-jewish", "Pro-Israel", "anti-Arab" = verbatim i said "Israeli/Judaism leaning bias; partial anti-Arabism", Israeli/Judaism doesn't mean both, I just did'nt know which it was, what it was, if it was. which is why I added the boldified words above insinuiting maybe some tendency. What else do you honestly expect me think it is? Why else would you literally not once throughout this entire thing have you made me feel welcomed or like i am contributing well to the wp community, you have described in your report assuming I was a new user, you really know how to push someone away from this community. you have ignored the over 5 or so messages i have send basically pleading for some clarification, yet the only time you notice my message is when you decide to twist my light hearted joke to falsly put words in my mouth to help your cause at getting me banned from the article. Like I literally said you paid them dude? why are you so bitter. but this isn't about emotions so it isnt that important.
 * i respect your decision, I don't believe I would have agreed to the terms of reverting to the almost -10k version. All that version does is unfairly remove the 2 most notable members, from the list; revert back to unclean citations, when I fixed each one, revert back to messier placed images, i am fairly certain if you checked the page you would prefere the current image placements, and reverting back to deprecated information. You ask why I suggested partial anti-arabis, mostly due to the fact that; the only reason I could muster up is if you are against the "victims of war" section. Why? it is all cited and relevant to the article. Furthermore it would show not only the Palestinian deaths, it would mention the Iraqi deaths under the hands of Bush, under the hands of he Islamic State, etc. I didn't call the section "victims of the IDF" that would arguably be biased.
 * I feel like I am writing a lot again, and do not want to get the reviewer inconvenience with a long resposne. So I will stop myself here. I have been working on this page for years, and never have I encountered such a potential risk of losing it all. it really does mean a lot to me dear reviewer. Im a junior at harvard and this past few months has been extremely stressful, but researching and writing i feel like is an escape for me. Alas, I will see if I can gain access to wiki-helper; but if not I only ask you to please please please look all the logs and judge us fairly. thank you very much. Elijahtree (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

User:David_Gerard reported by User:Itemirus (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)

Comments:

Deleted content in the page arbitrarily and tagged it for speedy deletion even if it didn't remotely meet any criteria for deletion. The user engages in edit warring and removes content on a whim on other pages as well, such as South_Park_(Not_Suitable_for_Children) and ERC-721 as most recent examples; his talk page is full of complaints in regards to his actions. The user advertises his book on cryptocurrencies on his Wikipedia user page, with direct links to a page that then leads to Amazon where his book is sold. Is this kind of direct advertising allowed? How come he has not been blocked before? He has been engaging in edit warring and removal of content whithout notice and without discussion for years, and likely brags about it. Probably suffers from some kind of "I own Wikipedia" morbidity. Is he even fit to be an admin? Itemirus (talk)  08:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * his talk page is full of complaints in regards to his actions … many of which are from SPAs promoting their cryptocurrency of choice or editors unfamiliar with WP:RSP so I don't think that point carries much weight. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You (filer) created that article and wrote lots of content in it, David Gerard edited it with an edit-summary citing policies/guidelines. You undid his edit and he made no further edits to that article. So I don't see any EW. But... calling his edit vandalism and engaging in personal attacks and armchair psychoanalysis of him (some of which I had to revdel) may indeed merit more than just the level3 warning I gave you for it. DMacks (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * . No edit warring by David Gerard. Itemirus has been blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks here and here (the second attack was so crude that it has been revision deleted, not by me). Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC).

User:99.245.197.9 reported by User:DanielRigal (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I won't stop"
 * 2)  "I can play this game all year. I'll keep making this change."
 * 3)  "The paragraph about her anti-Muslim comments should be in a separate section called "controversy." This is the case for other actors on Wikipedia. Stop trying to protect her by tucking it away at the end of the advocacy section. I will continue to make this change if you keep undoing it."
 * 1)  "The paragraph about her anti-Muslim comments should be in a separate section called "controversy." This is the case for other actors on Wikipedia. Stop trying to protect her by tucking it away at the end of the advocacy section. I will continue to make this change if you keep undoing it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Selma Blair."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Selma Blair."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Islamophobic Statements */ explain"

Comments:

Blatant and unrepentant edit warring for an obvious POV edit that is contrary to policy. Edit summaries include "I won't stop" which was used after a final warning had been issued and the relevant policy pointed out. DanielRigal (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)