Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive479

User:Abhishek0831996 reported by User:RangersRus (Result: Warned; page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Abhishek0831996 was also warned previously by another editor for edit warring. Abhishek0831996 continued reverting changes without discussion. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was reverting blatant vandalism by random users who are there to censor criticism about this propaganda movie. OP should stop filing such bad-faith report. I have warned them of AC/DS of this area. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Now that Abhishek0831996 is not happy about this notice, for no reason he posts a discretionary notice on my talk page. RangersRus (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the reverts, he was told on his talk page and on the description of the edit that the source Koimoi does not meet WP:ICTFSOURCES and its listed under unreliable sites but Abhishek0831996 chose to ignore it. The other reverts he is making are not vandalism as the general reviews by critics are there under Critical Reception but Abhishek0831996 takes few of the low rated reviews and adds them to the lead to give an overall prospect of the movie. Abhishek0831996 fails to discuss before Reverting. RangersRus (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I had already responded you. 3/4 reverts are reversion of blatant vandalism made by random users to censor the criticism about this propaganda movie. You should discuss if you have problem with those reverts instead of falsifying edits for your frivolous report. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The reverts you are referring to are not vandalism and not exempt under WP:3RRNO.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You started to respond after this edit warring report here. I alteady sent you message on your talk page before the report here. RangersRus (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 3/4 reverts involve 3 different random IPs who are removing sourced content without any reason. Multiple other editors also dealt with this disruption in last few hours. I am sure this does not fall under edit warring because the content was not being challenged by the IPs but it is being censored in a disruptive manner. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're flat out wrong, and regardless of the outcome of this report, you'd do better to familiarize yourself with WP:EW; otherwise, you may find yourself blocked. BTW, the IPs aren't "random" - they are all part of the same (wide) range and likely belong to the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I understand that these edits were disruptive from your point of view, but whether they're vandalism depends on the intention behind them. You can't look into other people's minds. Except in obvious cases of vandalism, and this isn't one, you may not ignore the edit warring policy. Many disruptive, biased, stubbornly edit warring, seemingly destructive contributions are meant to improve the encyclopedia. They don't do so, but they're not vandalism.
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also put a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Scu ba reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "church executive is not a reliable source, it is a blog, stop citing blogs"
 * 2)  "don't cite blogs"
 * 3)  "Scu ba moved page Ryan Binkley to Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin: PROVE that HE deserves an article with citations that DONT TALK ABOUT HIS PRESIDENTAL CAMPAGIN. Binkley isn't notable, his campagin is. We can include a short little biography of him in the campagin article"
 * 4)  "←Redirected page to Ryan Binkley 2024 presidential campaign"
 * 1)  "←Redirected page to Ryan Binkley 2024 presidential campaign"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Page moves against naming conventions or consensus on Ryan Binkley 2024 presidential campaign."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ryan Binkley."
 * 3)   "Notice: Cut and paste moves."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Requested move 25 February 2024 */ +Oppose"

Comments:

Three times, this editor circumvented the PCM procedure to move the article to their desired name–twice after an administrator intervened to undo their original move. Since then, they have repeatedly removed reliable sources from the article. Their behavior in this now deleted discussion on their talk page and elsewhere all indicates they refuse to understand policy and are willing to bludgeon their preferred arrangement through any means. Pbritti (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping for as you were the originally involved admin and I mention one of your diffs. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the courtesy ping. I am satisfied with @Scu ba opening of the request move discussion despite them having made the moves as laid out. The moves was caught on early enough that I didn't have to use more advanced tools/processes like histmerge to repair page histories. However, I did put the page under protection for page move for 7 days after reverting the cut-and-paste move. This was in part (together with the conversation on Scu ba's talk page) to signal to everyone involved to scale back and start a discussion for other interested editors to help determine the consensus, of which has been opened as a RM discussion.
 * I will however revisit the discussion at a later date to give my inputs when I have the time. – robertsky (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't break the 3RR. please brush up on WP:3RR. I only reverted 3 times, I would have needed to revert it a fourth time to violate the rule. Scu ba (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't have to break 3RR to edit war, which you did in spades. Circumventing consensus to move a page twice and then muddle the article histories to make undoing your work more difficult (including a copy-and-paste move) is unacceptable, particularly by an experienced editor like yourself. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry that trying to get the article's title to match it's content is "edit warring" to you. I'll avoid editing Binkley's article from here on out, but I will leave the discussions open as he simply isn't notable as a standalone individual. Scu ba (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * per resolution of above discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Modivana reported by User:Willondon (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

No posts to user or article talk pages. Communication limited to edit summaries, mostly commands to "Do not change photo." No sign that they plan to give up. signed, Willondon (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked; see block log for details. This is cross-wiki spam for which the user should be globally locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Brutallust reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1210338316 by Magical Golden Whip (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1210338316 by Magical Golden Whip (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1210325935 by Magical Golden Whip (talk): There is no reason to completely undo page edits back to its out-of date, incorrect version."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Noah Munck."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Noah Munck."
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Noah Munck."
 * 4)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Noah Munck."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User adding unsourced information after still being warned. I just realized it was my fourth revert until after I reverted the edit, so I have been slightly in the wrong with the last revert, that part was my mistake. Another user decided to leave the unsourced information, but tagging it. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By my count, and, both of you have reverted six times. Brutallust, you should not be adding unsourced or unreliably sourced material to the article. Magical Golden Whip, you should not be accusing Brutallust of vandalism; it's not. I will let another administrator decide whether to block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , Yikes, I didn't release it was six by me, I didn't realize I was over until my last revert. As for the vandalism warning that was my mistake and should have been a disruptive editing warning. I was getting a bit feed up with him. My main issue was that then allowed the sources to stay, but then proceed to add the citation needed tags and the primary source inline tags after the fact, Shouldn't he just took out out the information that was improperly sourced? Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Cossde reported by User:Petextrodon (Result: Take to AN/I)
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: This user who has been blocked in the past for edit warring is continuing their behaviour despite being warned not to and while in middle of a discussion about the content in question.Petextrodon (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Petextrodon and Oz346, has been engaged in a rolling edit war across multiple pages.


 * Pottuvil massacre: ,
 * Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam:, ,
 * Sri Lanka Armed Forces : ,
 * 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom : ,

In fact this was raised by me in Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. While both have been engaged in personal attacks such as, ,. Cossde (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Advising you to follow basic Wikipedia rules does not constitute insults. I'm sorry that you see it that way (at least now, though you agreed with me earlier). --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This would be better at AN/I First, the last edit warring was three or four days ago. Second, the allegations that this is spilling across mulitiple articles and involving other users suggest it is beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case, if you're replying to me, I didn't bring up the second point. I've given multiple edit warring warnings to this user but they continue to persist with this behaviour. But your suggestion is noted. --- Petextrodon (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just clarified that this was a formal close. The other option we could take would be fully protecting the article for a few days, if you want that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:2D01:D400:8DA1:20E9:8FA5:B0CC reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: /64 range blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1210480854 by Czello (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1210479091 by Sideswipe9th (talk)"
 * 3)  "You disrespect each of the victims by not including public information. I didn't change anything other than birth, I didn't change pronouns or the killers chosen name."
 * 4)  "This is public information, and it is a disservice to the victims of this convicted murder to omit it from this page."
 * 5)  "Required corrections from records."
 * 6)  "correction of information as sanctioned"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Brightline WP:3RR violation on Susan Monica. IP editor is edit warring to include Monica's non-notable former name, which is currently excluded per MOS:GENDERID. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You disrespect each of the victims by not including public information. I didn't change anything other than birth, I didn't change pronouns or the killers chosen name. 2A02:C7C:2D01:D400:8DA1:20E9:8FA5:B0CC (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On Caitlyn Jenner's page it says she was born Bruce Jenner so how is my edit any different? 2A02:C7C:2D01:D400:8DA1:20E9:8FA5:B0CC (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:GENDERID. Caitlyn Jenner was notable under her former name, so the third paragraph of the guideline applies. Susan Monica was not, so the second paragraph of the guideline applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * /64 range blocked for 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page ... maybe we want to put the appropriate one for deadnaming there too?
 * BTW, I also agree with whoever complained on the talk page that the article should be renamed to "Murders of ... VICTIMS", following NCCRIME, because she isn't notable for anything else and that's not really enough to qualify as serial murder. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User:AxleOblong reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I also left a CTOPS notice on the talk page under ARBAP2. It looks like that may be needed in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * FYI, prior to this I opened an SPI on this account Sockpuppet investigations/AxleOblong as similar edits have come from two other accounts on the same page. Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Arlington0804 reported by User:Willondon (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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:

No posts to user or article talk pages. Communication limited to edit summaries. No sign of willingness to stop. It's been suggested that 3RR might not apply here (per WP:3RRNO, assuming poorly sourced, controversial content on a BLP), but I don't think the content is defamatory or the sources deficient enough to allow a complete pass here. There are still seven editors (including myself) that have opposed the removal. I believe a short block is warranted in this case, to reinforce the policy that Wikipedia is a communal effort and that a single editor is not allowed to ramrod their version into the article without any discussion with fellow editors. signed, Willondon (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see that an administrator commented on the article's talk page about a WP:3RRNO exception before this report was filed. Per WP:RSP both the sources used are at best marginally reliable, less so for the source used for the main points of the controversy section (which per WP:CRITS isn't ideal to begin with). I have to agree with User:Daniel Case that reverting the addition of a problematic section based solely on problematic sources on a BLP article is going to fall under WP:3RRNO here. - Aoidh (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Funny that as you wrote this I was in the process of putting in reliable sources. Daniel Case (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh They've now deleted the entire Controversy section even after @Daniel Case reliably sourced the content. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have left a message on their talk page concerning this. - Aoidh (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Philipnelson99 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Joseatienza reported by User:Sciencefish (Result: Blocked one week; Allyriana000 blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Note this was on my talk page.

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

Comments:

Please note that in their defence they posted on my talk page: Sciencefish please do not remove that "This is the second time that the Miss World pageant has been held in India." in the top in article of Miss World 2023 because i really want it thank you. Joseatienza (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sciencefish (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I blocked Joseatienza for one week and User:Allyriana000, who should have been reported, for 72 hours. Both blocks were increased because they each attacked the other in their edit summaries labeling the edits as "vandalism". Joseatienza got a longer block because of their block log, especially when you compare the proportion of # of edits to blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't report Allyriana000 as I ran out of time (I found the procedure quite time consuming). Sciencefish (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:6C50:103F:C431:5039:6AF0:825A:2EBB reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Result: Page fully protected one week. I am concerned about a possible BLP issue, and am leaving notes for User:Clear Looking Glass and User:Thedarkknightli. The IP reported here has been busy removing the claim that Vanessa Bryant's mother has some Filipino heritage. The only source for that claim is an interview posted on www.cupcakemag.com. The interview seems to have disappeared from the web along with cupcakemag.com itself. Is the ethnic heritage of Vanessa's mother, Sofia Laine, important enough to include in an article about Vanessa Bryant? Especially when the source is now gone from the web. The IP's edit summaries are very sharp and may even contain legal threats, but I'm concerned that we don't have much basis for the 'Filipino' claim any more. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You fully protected the article indefinitely - you might wish to adjust that. I've blocked the /64 range of the IP because of their conduct outside the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I am user 2600:6c50:103f:c431:c5d6:d16f:5b39:7eef and I urge that IP user Thedarkknightli and Clear Looking Glass claim that Vanessa Bryant is of Asian/Filipino descent to be permanently banned from being reported. IP user's claim is unfounded and unverifiable. Cupcake Magazine leadership has been reached out and asked to verify their claim of her being "Filipino" as IP user claims- they denied it and took down their page per link: https://www.cupcakemag.com/meet-the-team/. If the IP user's claim was verifiable, there would be many other reliable sources to substantiate their claim. To substantiate my claim, I urge you to visit: (1) https://www.hola.com/us/celebrities/20200228fl35tfdf88/vanessa-laine-bryant-nationality-childhood-biography-1/, (2) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-mourn-kobe-bryant-he-said-they-were-first-embrace-n1123861.
 * Lastly, there has been a sudden increase in misinformation, i.e., bots, that claim Vanessa Bryant to be of "Filipino" descent- none founded. In fact, there has been other Wikipedia IP users that have discussed with Thedarkknightli and Clear Looking Glass that his claim is unfounded.
 * She is not of Asian/Filipino descent or heritage as Thedarkknightli and Clear Looking Glass claims. I think its appropriate that they are barred from editing "early life" section to decrease the chances of descent/heritage being modified. 2600:6C50:103F:C431:2470:C035:A25A:1F7F (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * User:Bbb23, thanks for your note. I've reduced the protection to semi. But anyone who restores the claim of her Filipino descent without finding a reliable source for that is risking a block for disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:ELeMarque reported by User:Alvaldi (Result: Pblocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 2)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 3)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 1)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 1)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 1)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 1)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 1)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 1)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 1)  "/* Hockey career */"
 * 1)  "/* Hockey career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors."
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Eric LeMarque."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Eric LeMarque."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User, who judging by the name might be the subject, has reverted attempts to remove false information from the article that attempt to prop up the subjects achievements. Likely also edited as IP user 206.251.74.187. Alvaldi (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I pblocked the user indefinitely from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

User:2605:59C8:33D2:D310:28CE:DC6B:B0:D666 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 31 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1211098747 by MrOllie (talk) The revert needs to be justified. Please work towards resolving the issue in the talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1211097723 by RetroCosmos (talk) Please stop undo this revision in bad faith."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1211093913 by Geardona (talk) Again, please do not revert edits without reason."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1211017905 by MrOllie (talk) Undo arbitrary revert by MrOllie. Please only make necessary revisions that improve the quality of the page."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Should we allow vague assertions like this? */ Reply"

Comments:
 * The /64 has been blocked by . Ponyo bons mots 21:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

User:185.104.136.59 reported by User:Czello (Result: 185.104.136.0/26 blocked for 1 month )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1211236793 by Czello (talk) vandalism."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1211233125 by The Banner (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1211230820 by The Banner (talk) rv grossly incompetent vandal,  again"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1195007074 by The Banner (talk) rv incompetent vandal, again"
 * 5) Fifth revert

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has blanked the 3RR warning as well as a personal attack warning. — Czello (music) 14:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * For the avoidance of doubt, I duly notified the IP of this discussion but they have elected to blank that, also. — Czello (music) 14:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Read my edit. If you can identify any reason why you think it should be reverted in its entirety, do say what you think the reason is. One user has been reverting it without explanation for months, and really should be blocked for their destructive behaviour. This reporting user decided to indulge in an unexplained revert, despite zero evidence of any interest in or knowledge of the topic. If you don't like edit warring, then don't revert edits for no reason. 185.104.136.59 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You've been asked to discuss it on the talk page; you have refused to do so. You've also violated WP:3RR which is a bright-line rule. Also, do not delete my talk page comments as you did in your previous edit. — Czello (music) 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Talking about your own actions in the passive voice does not give them any extra weight. If you think something needs discussing, you need to say what your problem is with the edits I made.. 185.104.136.59 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. If your edits have been challenged by several other editors and you've been explicitly asked to discuss it on the talk page, then continuing to revert past 3RR while actively avoiding the talk page is likely to get you blocked. — Czello (music) 15:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You have not given any reason for your actions. You don't get to revert for no reason. You don't get to demand that people respond to non-existent objections. Until you outline why you are reverting (on an article you have never edited before today) there is nothing to discuss. 185.104.136.59 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note that the IP 185.104.136.20 showed the same personal attacks and disruptive editing. In my opinion, a block should be issued to the range when that is the course of action. This issue is going on for months now. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue of you harming an article without being able to offer any possible justification for your destruction has indeed been going on for months. It is not the first time you have behaved like this, and it won't be the last. Certainly, wikipedia would be better off if you were blocked. 185.104.136.59 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that the second IP was used by you too. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Rangeblocked for 1 month. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

User:174.247.208.110 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1211214503 by JeffUK (talk) Consensus already exists on talk page.   Far Right is listed elsewhere in article already and does not belong in the lead.Th"
 * 2)  "Removing far-right from lead.  Term already used elsewhere in the article.  Consesus reached on this talk page and other politicians also (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashida_Tlaib)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1211200267 by Ser! (talk)  Lengthy discussion and aonsensus made on plenty of articho NPOV"
 * 4)  "Removing "far-right" from lead.  Reference lengthy discussion regarding NPOV in politicians' articles here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rashida_Tlaib"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring and mis-representing consensus to justify doing so. Jeff UK 12:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note this fifth revert which is almost definitely the same user. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ...aaand again. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

since the article is under the AP contentious topic, and thus I have also alerted the editor to this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Wywuwuwu reported by User:Sciencefish (Result: 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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please note that these warning refer to Miss Universe 2019, where an identical situation has occured. I could not post a second warning as a fresh warning was already in place.

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

Comments:

Please note that a near identical edit war is going on at Miss Universe 2002: Revision history Miss Universe 2019: Revision history. All of the warnings relate to Miss Universe 2019, but this one reached the highest number of reverts first. Sciencefish (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Jasca Ducato reported by User:HenryRoan (Result: Declined – malformed report)
User Jasca Ducato appears to be edit warring on the Dune Part Two article for the last two days. He has been asked to stop edit warring and to establish consensus following Wikipedia BRD rules, but feels that the BRD rules are optional for him and has stated on his Talk page appears to say that he does not feel obliged to follow BRD. He has been told that he has no support for his edit, and that I am supporting the version by DuneEditor as being a more stable version of the edit. He still wishes to force his edit into the article without making consensus on the Talk page first. Can someone request that he establish consensus on the Talk page first before forcing his edits into the article?

Jasca Ducato's edits appear to be disruptive and ungrammatical as he presented in his edit: "He convincing Jessica...". A sequence of several editors then tried to fix the errors in his bold edits here, and his edit was finally reverted to the last stable version of the article. Several editors had tried to fix his disruptive and ungrammatical edits here:, , and here. I have requested that he stop edit warring to force his edits into the article and that he follow BRD. His own Talk page has been notified to stop edit warring.

Jasca Ducato appears to be edit warring against and his edit here. His edit has been reverted by me since I am supporting the version edited by DuneEditor. He should make consensus on the article Talk page prior to further edits and stop forcing his edits into the article against Wikipedia policy. HenryRoan (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

User:AzerbaijaniQizilbash reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Brand new user who has already caused quite the trouble by doing WP:TENDENTIOUS edits such as mainly altering/removing sourced info and addition of revisionist info (eg ).

<span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:TheBishopAndHolyPrince (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 07:22, 2 March 2024‎ Cambial Yellowing talk contribs‎ 74,380 bytes −68‎ Reverted 2 edits by TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk): MOS:LINKCLARITY . The manual of style, not your ramblings, determine how we refer to people. Use the Cameron talk page if you want to argue to move that article to one using his flowery name.
 * 1)  22:22, 2 March 2024‎ TheBishopAndHolyPrince talk contribs‎  74,448 bytes +68‎  Undid revision 1211382829 by Cambial Yellowing (talk Reversed for the reason given at 23:07, 1 March 2024‎ by TheBishopAndHolyPrince; and because: (1) the title is closest to the link; (2) previous peers who were Foreign Secretary were referred by their title; (3) the comment by Cambial Yellowing underlines the contemptuous attitude towards Cameron being a peer which appears to be a personal attack).
 * 2)  22:41, 2 March 2024‎ Cambial Yellowing talk contribs‎  74,380 bytes −68‎ Reverted 1 edit by TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk): Take it to the talk page at Talk:David Cameron.
 * 3)  22:49, 2 March 2024‎ TheBishopAndHolyPrince talk contribs‎  74,448 bytes +68‎  Undid revision 1211505939 by Cambial Yellowing (talk The undo is undone to revert the page back to Lord Cameron's official title which is how he should be referred to rather than his name. It is appropriate to distinguish that this refers solely to his title in his profession rather than the name of the article "David Cameron". If the other person wishes to insist then they can take it to the talk page)
 * 4)  22:53, 2 March 2024‎ Cambial Yellowing talk contribs‎ m  74,380 bytes −68‎ Reverted 1 edit by TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) to last revision by Cambial Yellowing.

Diff of edit warring Foreign Secretary: Revision history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: provided comprehensive reasons when I reverted twice, which are factual. The reported user did not dispute the reasons and in any event the talk page on "David Cameron" would not be the appropriate talk page, it would be the "Foreign Secretary" talk page.

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

Comments: The user appears too be engaged in an edit war and has reverted the edit back to "David Cameron" from "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" for at least four times, counting all reverted edits of "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton". The page should remain by the Foreign Secretary's title rather than his personal title, for the reasons cited in the revision history, and sanction should be imposed against the user engaged in the edit war.
 * Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:TheBishopAndHolyPrince (Result: No violation, filer warned for personal attacks)
Page: Foreign Secretary

User being reported: User:Cambial Yellowing

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: provided comprehensive reasons when I reverted twice, which are factual. The reported user did not dispute the reasons and in any event the talk page on "David Cameron" would not be the appropriate talk page, it would be the "Foreign Secretary" talk page.

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

'''Comments:

The user appears too be engaged in an edit war and has reverted the edit back to "David Cameron" from "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton" for at least four times, counting all reverted edits of "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton". The page should remain by the Foreign Secretary's title rather than his personal title, for the reasons cited in the revision history, and sanction should be imposed against the user engaged in the edit war. Finally, it is relevant of the two following factors. First, this is a report that has been originally declined as malformed; secondly, Cambial Yellowing has produced a report against me which appears to be retaliatory; and thirdly, the user appears to have a history of engaging in edit wars as can be seen from their talk page.'''


 * Your first diff is one edit. Trying to game the system by mischaracterizing other editors' actions to make them seem improper is a disruptive and unproductive behaviour. Better to engage on talk at Talk:Foreign Secretary Talk:David Cameron or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That is irrelevant if it is done by one edit as you reverted two separate edits which translates to two reverts. In addition, it is notable that you have a history of edit warring and that others as can be seen from your talk page and even the Foreign Secretary talk page have emphasised this. You have even deleted the ANEW posted in connection with this report against you. It is petty and it is not an economical way to proceed. You must stop edit warring and engaging in these activities. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * which translates to two reverts. It doesn't.
 * You must engage on the talk page instead of trying to force through your edit against well-established principles at the manual of style. Talk:Foreign Secretary would be a start, but as you're seeking to ignore a site-wide standard it should really be at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 00:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It literally says you reverted two edits. It is as simple as that. Your machiavellian diatribes are unwarranted and you should desist forthwith. @GoodDay in relation to your point (00:11, 3 March 2024): I have respected the method, it is Cambial Yellowing who has not. They reverted four separate edits. I am not the only person to have voiced the clear persistence of Cambial Yellowing which they have been previously blocked for. The consensus on the talk page underlines the latter. Cambial Yellowing puts themselves in an onslaught against any editor who does not agree with their view, and in any event, they have breached the three-revert rule in this instance. As stated above, this is not the first time they have breached 3RR and they have been sanctioned for it. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a consensus for the change you attempted. Best not to repeat making that change, until you get such a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus I refer to is referenced in relation to what others have said that the name on the article Foreign Secretary should refer to the office holder as their proper title. This is totally different to the main article name of David Cameron and the talk on the David Cameron does not carry over to the talk page on the Foreign Secretary article. The two are different, and the Foreign Secretary page should refer to the office holder by his proper title, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, whilst the heading of the office holder's biography page can remain as David Cameron. The infobox on the David Cameron page is even "Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton", so the assertion to not have this correspond on the Foreign Secretary page again is wrong. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All of which you are free to seek consensus for at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 00:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The reporting editor has not respected the WP:BRD method. Once reverted, the editor should've sought consensus on the talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * However, TheBishopAndHolyPrince is warned for retaliatory filing here ad for personal attacks ("your Mchiavellian diatribes"). Any more of this and there will be a block for WP:BATTLEGROUND.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User:TheBishopAndHolyPrince reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already a discussion open; user has opted not to engage on talk despite encouragement.

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

Comments:

The editor is currently forum shopping in the hope of being able to ignore the manual of style and the overwhelming consensus at the linked article talk that the article title should remain David Cameron. They've also raised a request at page protection. Page protection would not be appropriate in this instance because the disruption is only coming from one user: TheBishopAndHolyPrince. Although they have not yet breached 3RR, the editor has been directed to the manual of style (particularly MOS:LINKCLARITY) but has made clear their intention to ignore it. An article block for editor TheBishopAndHolyPrince will prevent further disruption in the short term.

Both myself and other editors have reverted IP disruption on this issue, but it has been sporadic and page protection is probably not needed. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 23:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * See below report: User:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:TheBishopAndHolyPrince. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   00:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * However, another revert will result in a block. CY, plreaee remember that adherence to the MoS is not a justification for edit-warring. TBAHP, please read the WP:MOS.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Buidhe reported by User:Elinruby (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is a complaint that has been edit-warring to preserve a preferred version of Double genocide theory and in particular has three times tonight removed the tagging on that article, including the use of rollback.

Note that while this is a contentious topic (link here, notification below) the behaviour in question is problematic regardless of content, so this seemed like the right place to bring it. If not, please advise. Elinruby (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Background
Arbcom finding of fact 8 notes lack of enforcement

previous AE final warning

Buidhe is warned that communication is mandatory, especially regarding disagreements about content and sourcing, and that the additional sourcing requirements applied to this topic area do not change this. They are further warned that AE must not be used to "win" content disputes. These are final warnings - any future examples of this or similar behaviour in the topic area will result in sanctions. Separate to this specific incident, there is some dissatisfaction with the sourcing requirement itself and a similar amount of support for an ARCA regarding that, but it was pointed out that it would be more likely to be sucessful if there was a specific alternative proposed (which there wasn't here). Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2021

March 1

 * 5:07 to 05:51 14 constructive edits with detailed edit summaries. Includes pov tag


 * 5:52 rollback
 * 5:54 rs tag
 * (ec) 5:56 my revert of rollback


 * 5:57 manual revert, removes pov tag


 * 6:04 replace pov tag, add refimprove


 * 6:23 say what talk page post by me


 * 6:42 CT notification


 * 6:49 unsatisfactory answer


 * 6:56 removes tagging labelled "fixes"


 * 7:40 detailed refutation


 * 7:58 additional text


 * 8:10 notice tagging again removed and object


 * 8:20 separate section, other topic


 * Crickets

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

i have nevef posted here before; please let me know if I did this wrong Elinruby (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this got reported here. There is an ongoing talk page discussion as to what to do with the article. Unfortunately, we were both editing at the same time and that led to edit conflicts. I explained on talk why I don't think Elinruby's edits were improvements. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The "ongoing discussion" consists of saying she is too busy to discuss, lol. But not too busy to post here or to blind rollback and revert apparently. But just let me know; the matter of whether Buidhe's approval is needed to bring the article into compliance with CT sourcing requirements can go to AE if this is the wrong venue. Elinruby (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate at all. As far as I understand it, no sources were removed from the article, so it's hard to see how any AE requirements would come into play. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * you removed a refimprove tag and several RS tags. Also a POV banner, and you reinstated all the PoV language and misleading linking that I had removed.
 * But listen, I think people can see from the diffs what happened. I would however like to point out that Finding of Fact #8 (and its subsections) in the Arbcom link above goes into some detail to say that the policy against edit-warring is not trumped by Buidhe's conviction that some other editor is wrong in some way. That was about Poland and this is about my strange idea that Lithuanian historians might have something to say about Lithuanian history, but under the motion I linked to above and at Buidhe's talk page, the sourcing restriction applies to Lithuania as well and the popular press sourcing of an important issue in the hi
 * historiography needs to be addressed.
 * And by the way, Buidhe, the discuss part of BRD means discussing, not listing specious complaints followed by silence. You don't revert 14 edits over a typo and some cn tags. I know you think you are righting great wrongs, but that doesn't even matter. You are supposed to collaborate. Collaboration is not rolling back 14 edits you don't like. Elinruby (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are acting like those 14 edits were made with complete consensus on your side. They were not. You are not collaborating. Frankly, you're engaging in pretty abusive behavior.
 * To ease your mind and set us in line with wikipedia policy - I contest all of your edits. I think they are poorly thought out, reactionary, and require further discussion. I would also have reverted them. Making 14 mavericks edits, smearing the article as Soviet propaganda, and running straight to the mods (ironically, trying to engage in the same "appeal to authority" you accused multiple editors of) because they were reverted to a previous consensus is not constructive. @Buidhe's reversions were standard, and in-line with the wikipedia optional policy of the BRD cycle. You made a bunch of bold edits, they were reverted, and we want to discuss them before more edits are made. buidhe tagged previous editors in to engage it that discussion - there is nothing bad about that. All in line with policy. It's fine to object to the BRD cycle - but honestly, you're being a jerk about it. You did not try to engage in good faith, you immediately began insulting buidhe by accusing them of policy violations and bad faith, and opened multiple discussions topics to contest that same issue. Please engage in good faith discussion instead of whatever this is.
 * I will not engage with you further here unless called upon to by a third party, but I figured it was important to have another editor's opinion here. Carlp941 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see the required notification on your talk page, then consider whether you want to strike what you just said.
 * And these is no question that the article violates policy. There's an Arbcom decision, which counts as policy the last I heard.
 * I don't have any more time for this right now, but the third party thing can be arranged if you insist. I've been pretty patient but really, this has to stop. Elinruby (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * First, all that "March 1" stuff above is rather curious given that there are no edits to the article on that day. Second, if we are talking about March 2 Buidhe has made only three reverts today and thus there's no issue here. Third, if it really is this complicated it belongs at AN/I. And aside from that, I find Elinruby's argument to be basically that they didn't like being reverted and think that their hard work and hurt feelings should entitle them to some form of redress. Suggesting that Buidhe's discussion consisted of saying she didn't have time to discuss and then sneeringly dismissing her pinging of two other editors who had done far more work on that article than she had as "appeal to authority" is not only insulting and unbecoming of a Wikipedian but disingenous, as one of the pinged editors themselves pointed out. I have tagged the talk page with a CTOPS notice under EE, something I am surprised has taken this long since it seems to be the very definition of an article that would land dead center in those minefields. That is the least I can do for now. But, Elinruby, I must not leave without counseling you that if you continue to edit this article and discuss it this way, it may well be you as well whose editing is constrained by an ArbCom admonition. Thank you and good night. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * that isn't exactly what happened, but fair enough, it is really that complicated, with multiple ethnic narratives, only one of which is presented here, but I won't belabor the details. It actually belongs at AE, IMHO, given the Arbcom involvement, but I think they are still knee-deep in NFL draft vs NFL Draft, so that weighed my decision to come here rather than there.
 * My feelings don't enter into it as endless reverts are quite common in the topic area and that was never the issue. I'd like to ask for an explanation though if you don't mind, since I generally simply avoid edit warriors and thus am a newbie here -- is the issue that there was no fourth edit? I would have thought that this was a pretty clearcut case of stonewalling. We can go into that at your talking page or mine if you prefer.
 * As for my attitude, I won't not to have one at all -- I do think I should not be revented from editing the article -- but Carl has read a great deal into some surprising things; I am currently at ANI for giving him a contentious topics notice. So thanks for putting one up on the article and clearing up that hotly contested point at least. And to be clear, even though I am asking for an explanation I accept the decline as a reasonable admin action. I would just like the matter of three reverts explained to me, if you don't mind. Elinruby (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User:SupermanHistorian reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Olek Novy reported by User:Dƶoxar (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)
Page1:

Page2:

User being reported:

Main discussion is here. User:Olek Novy ignores arguments and reliable sources. The user was blocked in Russian Wikipedia for vandalism a couple of days ago.

P.S. I'm not sure if I left a request on the right page, but this problem is lasting for a month.

Stable version of the page 1:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts (Page 2):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * You are required to notify of this report as it states at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments 1.I tried discussing this with you and you ignored it. And you're sources have been already debunked. 2. You started these edit wars.
 * Sources were not debunked, you're just pushing "alternative" version.--Dƶoxar (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User: 2003:EA:4F25:F202:31D6:6BA1:6B78:3542 reported by User:Grandmaster (Result: /56 range blocked from article for a month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

This is the same user as who has recently been blocked. Now he is back on another IP. ,, , appear to be the same user too. I will not be posting diffs of rvs, because these IPs edit war across multiple pages, and there are way too many diffs to post. The pages they rv are also subject to WP:XC per WP:GS/AA. Grand master  16:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition, judging by these 2 edits, it could be a banned user evading his ban:   Grand  master  17:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * from the article. Their edits show extensive editing within the Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topic area. Since they do not seem to have been universally regarded as disruptive outside this article, I have decided not to make it a sitewide block. But that could change if it seems more certain this is another sock. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Addendum: If the other IP might also be a sock, the range to look at is Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Second addendum: I have added a CTOPs notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking through history, the article Panah Ali Khan gets persistent disruption/sock activity since at least 2020. It was semi-protected too in the past. Maybe it is worth making it permanently edit confirmed restricted? Together with Mehdi Qoli Khan Javanshir and Khurshidbanu Natavan. I'm pretty sure is the same banned user too, and there are other IPs in that range that engage in edit warring. Grand master  20:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This IP has recently been blocked by checkuser. He was edit warring on the same article Seyidli Mosque as the IPs I reported here. The amount of disruption from this IP range is extensive. The IPs often edit war to remove Azerbaijani transcriptions from the articles. Grand master  20:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Mughalised reported by User:ImperialAficionado (Result: Indefinitely blocked as a sock)
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:


 * Indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

User:HistoricalAnomaly reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added more of the related ethnic groups. The haplogroups frequencies, phylogenetic tree and network analysis identified the west Eurasian ancestral origin of Shina group with nearby maternal ancestral relationships with the Kashmiri population. However, no close genetic relationship of Shina was depicted with nearby residing Kho population group.[25] founded by Mah Noor et al. (2019)"
 * 2)  "added native name can be verified by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_language            and changed relative ethnic group can be verified by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shina_people#:~:text=The%20haplogroups%20frequencies%2C%20phylogenetic%20tree,nearby%20residing%20Kho%20population%20group."
 * 3)  "added the related actual ethnic group and removed the face one easily verifiable with proof. as shina are only majorly maternally related with Kashmiris and no other group in south asia and vice versa https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shina_people#:~:text=The%20haplogroups%20frequencies%2C%20phylogenetic%20tree,nearby%20residing%20Kho%20population%20group."
 * 4)  "added the related ethnicity in template and proof of it can be found by shina kashmiri relationship here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shina_people#:~:text=The%20haplogroups%20frequencies%2C%20phylogenetic%20tree,nearby%20residing%20Kho%20population%20group."
 * 5)  "added more of the related ethnic groups."
 * 6)  "i changed the picture of kashmiri girls performing rouf in delhi because half of those girls were not kashmiri and i added other related ethnic groups and also added the name of the kashmiri ethnicity in native language. i hope there is credibility left on this website and it accepts my edit request because if it does not this website is nothing but promoting false propaganda."
 * 7)  "i changes the template photo representing kashmiri girls because the photo that was already on this page actually was false and consisted of girls from india giving fake idea to viewers about how kashmiri look and i added the name of kashmiri ethnicity on native language"
 * 1)  "i changes the template photo representing kashmiri girls because the photo that was already on this page actually was false and consisted of girls from india giving fake idea to viewers about how kashmiri look and i added the name of kashmiri ethnicity on native language"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user keeps on edit warring despite reverts by multiple users and warnings. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * as NOTHERE. Also added CTOPS notice to talk page (another one of those "surprised it hasn't been done before" instances) Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

User:MadBlade 2 reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Warning left on editor's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Imperial meter reported by User:148.255.234.165 (Result: Semi-protected article for one month)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff
 * 7) diff
 * 8) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments:

The user continues to revert numerous edits of the IPs and alters several articles related to anime titles that are currently licensed by the parent company Crunchyroll LLC which also controls the Crunchyroll streaming service since, including this one, and he continues to insist with the same thing on the discussion page of the main article about Confusing History that the statements he describes are correct. Here: 148.255.234.165 (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the article for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I just said, I'm saying that the user is still altering the edit history of the two pages involved and the IPs reverted them many times, before and after Imperial meter reverted it numerous times with alterations and I want you to was restored to the only stable edition as it was before and block his account, preventing him from editing the Crunchyroll LLC page, Aniplex of America and several anime titles.
 * Here:, and read: DISRUPT. 190.167.126.198 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This IP looks suspicious. Based on the IP findings, the 190.x.x.x range appears to be from the Dominican Republic or VPN. Disregard it. Imperial meter (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Disregard it, you are the one who continues to suspect yourself, at least dedicate yourself to something else and remember the one who makes a mess on numerous pages of various anime distributors and shows will always be you, why you would do something that an IP of different ranks coming from the Dominican Republic, whitewash all your editions if you don't even have common sense. 66.98.72.114 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Wikiwikicola reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Sock indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Jason Dasey EW notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Appears to be editing their own article. Adakiko (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked, along with a couple of other accounts, as socks (old sock farm). Another sock, User:Fishermunn33, I didn't bother with because they haven't edited in over a year.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Holland trip reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1211925888 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1211925785 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1211925709 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1211925595 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1211925556 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1211925414 by Daveosaurus (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1211925272 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1211925196 by Daveosaurus (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1211925006 by Daveosaurus (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Another user has reported this user to AIV. David Biddulph (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked by .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

User:180.75.238.55 reported by User:HundenvonPenang (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Calling for urgent action on IP address 180.75.238.55 resuming persistent edit-warring behaviour after being blocked due to disruptive behaviour in WP:ANI, as per Deb's advice. No attempt was made to establish consensus and said IP address appears to have chronic edit-warring tendencies. hundenvonPG (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping for Liz, IP address resuming edit-warring behaviour after block. hundenvonPG (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked 1 week for disruption and continued unsubstantiated accusations of racism.--  Ponyo bons mots 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

User:HJ72JH reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Start of the list "Besides the former colonial languages of English, French, Portuguese, Dutch (Afrikaans) and Spanish, the following languages are official at the national level in Africa (non-exhaustive list):""
 * 2)  "Since the list includes a colonial language"
 * 3)  "It’s not a bold edit when it says “Besides the former colonial languages of English, French, Portuguese, Dutch (Afrikaans) and Spanish, the following languages are official at the national level in Africa (non-exhaustive list):” and it says “Indo-European languages, while not indigenous to Africa, are spoken in South Africa and Namibia (Afrikaans)" It's keeping in the style of the article"
 * 4)  "Afrikaans is quite literally an "Indo-European language, not indigenous to Africa". It's in the article itself"
 * 5)  "Afrikaans is a colonial language and the list is for languages other than colonial languages"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* March 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

1) They refused to respect BRD even after being reminded of it. 2) They continued to edit war while refusing to engage in the discussion that I started. 3) When they finally started communicating, they kept contradicting themselves and after seeing that two editors disagree with them, they removed the content again. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I did not contradict myself at any point. The list does not include colonial languages and it's supposed to exclude Afrikaans. HJ72JH (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One thing is for sure, you kept edit warring after blanking your talk page and removing the recent 3R notice. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Alen Hermen reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Declined)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5): diff

Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 4): diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5): On Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 4):
 * 1) 09:53–10:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) 06:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) 15:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) 16:25–16:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) 05:35–05:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) 06:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) 09:59–10:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) 06:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) 15:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) 16:18–16:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) 05:44–06:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) 06:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, however there are some discussion on user talk pages: User talk:Alen Hermen, User talk:Ravensfire

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

Comments:

Hi, I am an uninvolved editor who came across this crystal-clear 3RR violation from this editor on multiple pages. They have been warned about it before as shown in the diff above. The user appears to be edit-warring to constantly restore a "ratings and viewership" on these articles, with either no sources or unreliable sources. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  07:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the report. They have self-reverted after I opened a discussion here - Talk:Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5). I believe they have understood the problems with their contributions now. to administrator, I don't think a block will be necessary, WP:AGF. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I Reverted my edits. Alen Hermen (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noticed, thanks for that. I'd be happy to withdraw if you have understood the edit warring policy. Also a quick sidenote, calling someone a "robot" like you did here kind of goes against the civility policy, so keep that in mind. Regards, — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks,But-Is Robot A Bad Thing Alen Hermen (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It'd be seen as a personal attack by some at least. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  08:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , depending on how you view it, questioning someone's humanity can be a very severe attack. See the article about dehumanization for example. However, in this case here, "stop being like a robot" is far away from that. It should be avoided and is rather incivil of course; I'd be surprised if you meant it as a compliment. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * per apparent resolution above. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Abrasax123 reported by User:JUMPp1harm (Result: No violation, filer blocked for copyright violation )
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: [diff]

Comments:

This user persists in undoing the improvements I've made, despite the changes being objectively beneficial. Their justifications for reverting edits are lacking in substance.


 * JUMPp1harm is warned for their own edit-warring. A conviction that an edit is "objectively benefical" is not a justification for edit-warring. Stop and discuss on the talkpage.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Further note: filer blocked for copyright violation after previous warnings.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Rembo01 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Version reverted to 06:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC) by Ulcerative

Rembo01 is a throw-away account created to edit war on conflicts involving Indonesia (the one being reported is not the only article he/she is trying to impose his/her POV on). He/she also edited as an IP editor as part of this. On Indonesian National Revolution, they are trying, amongst other things, to put "Indonesian victory" into the infobox.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  111.94.67.181 13:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 2)  Rembo01 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3)  Rembo01 03:00 - 04:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 4)  Rembo01 09:56 - 11:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 5)  Rembo01 15:52 - 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 6)  Rembo01 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:57 - 16:59, 7 March 2024‎ (UTC)

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

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

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

I have reverted this user's personal preference edits to this page, they have been warned about engaging in warring and told to take it to the talk page. It seems at this point they only want to push their preference on the page as they have reverted back their edits 3+ times.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Bonesdonahue

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:FMSky reported by User:Thesixthstaff (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Laken_Riley&diff=prev&oldid=1212584403

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212584738
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212606534
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212612072
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1212613004

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFMSky&diff=1212615400&oldid=1211833642

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thesixthstaff&diff=prev&oldid=1212612807 [diff]

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

Comments:

So obviously this article is already a really contentious subject right now. I've definitely been editing extensively, mostly to try to combat potential BLP violations, especially per WP:BLPCRIME. I don't think technically I've broken the 3RR rule here, but understand if my conduct could also be considered edit warring. With that in mind, do with me what you will. I've tried to find consensus on the talk page, etc, including adding the substance of FMSky's reversion to a sentence where it reads more naturally, but that got reverted as well. If it seems appropriate, I will put in a request at the pertinent noticeboard for pending changes protection on the page. Please also note that the user reverted my warning on their talk page and counter-warned me. Thesixthstaff (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all, you were edit warring too. Secondly, your edits go against the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Laken_Riley#WP:BLPCRIME? The only reason this murder is notable is because it was committed by an illegal immigrant, so removing this info (or hiding it with obscure wording) is unhelpful and disruptive -- FMSky (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't sought to remove reference to the suspect being an illegal immigrant - I deliberately included it, actually. If you look at any of my edits or diffs you will see that is the case. In addition, the talk page discussion you cited (which I started, btw) did not reach what I would consider "consensus", and certainly not a consensus strong enough that my movement of a word from one paragraph to the next would be considered in violation. Thesixthstaff (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , yes, you did revert four times in a couple of hours, but ... do you consider the issue resolved with what Sixth proposes here? I notice that afterwards you posted, then removed, an edit-war warning, suggesting that's the case. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was fine with that suggestion but at the same time the user removed the initial mention that the suspect entered the US illegally https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Laken_Riley&diff=prev&oldid=1212612917 which i dont agree with
 * The context for my proposal of adding "illegally" to that sentence was with the understanding that I would remove the clause from the prior paragraph. I could have been clearer, but I stand by the compromise as reasonable. Thesixthstaff (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. The issue, really, isn't so much that he entered illegally as that when he was apprehended after doing that, he was released without being deported. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * EW aside, using the words murder and illegal in WikiVoice without any convictions is disturbing. I don't see this in the sources other than accused of, arrested for, and quotes by Republicans. This is a contentious BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * article doesnt call him an illegal, only that he entered the country illegally, which is supported by reliable sources: https://apnews.com/article/congress-laken-riley-immigration-ibarra-georgia-34b06b0829772900eb55c123fe151845 "Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan man who entered the U.S. illegally" --FMSky (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That source says this in the middle of statements by Republicans blaming Biden for the death, and the article is not specifically about this incident. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-riley-immigrants-crime-63181cbc7a89fe9fe28b1d0cf84c8b9a Immigration authorities say Mr. Ibarra, a Venezuelan, entered the country illegally in 2022.
 * Note that the sentence in the linked article links to another article about the man that only says arrested, not illegal. The only use of the word “murder” in both articles is a quote from Donald Trump. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didnt add murder(er), discuss that with the user who did --FMSky (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at the first fives cites and they do not state illegal in their voice, including the cite for that wording in our article. Our policies on BLPs are quite strict. I don't see any problem with using alleged. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bonesdonahue reported by User:Derknasnort (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List of Super Bowl champions&oldid=1211284479&dir=prev

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: (none)

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

Comments:

I have reverted and warned this user about their edits, it seems that they are just reverting their personal preference edits to vandalize the page for fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derknasnort (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * from editing this specific page only. You can (and should) still discuss this at Talk:List of Super Bowl champions while blocked. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:186.138.208.98 reported by User:JalenFolf (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to English-language spelling reform"
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to English-language spelling reform"
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to English-language spelling reform"
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to English-language spelling reform"
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to English-language spelling reform"
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to English-language spelling reform"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* "Nooalf" listed at Redirects for discussion */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Nooalf."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP disruptively edit warring an unsourced article during an ongoing RfD discussion. User does not seem interested in discussion at all. Jalen Folf  (talk)  01:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Pugdad78 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1212921577 by Meters (talk) #diff-undo"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1212919551 by Jamedeus (talk) https://ckcusa.com/breeds/pug Breed descriptions from a registry detailing breed standard and nonstandard. AKC considers anything not fawn or black as not pure blooded which is erroneous. Pugs didn't arrive in the US until after the Civil War, arriving from Europe not the origin country. AKC began registering the breed in 1885, establishing coat colors at that time from erroneous information..."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1212916808 by Jamedeus (talk) https://medium.com/@WelcometotheGrumble/the-pugs-of-many-colors-a9601d09899a#diff-undo"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1212912134 by Reshadp (talk) #diff-undo"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1212912273 by Pugdad78 (talk) https://medium.com/@WelcometotheGrumble/the-pugs-of-many-colors-a9601d09899a#diff-undo"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1212912899 by Pugdad78 (talk) https://medium.com/@WelcometotheGrumble/the-pugs-of-many-colors-a9601d09899a#diff-undo"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1212910000 by CycloneYoris (talk) #diff-undo"
 * 8)  "/* top */"
 * 1)  "/* top */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1) Talk:Pug talk page thread opened at same time this report was started. Reverts by Pugdad78 have continued ,
 * 1) Talk:Pug talk page thread opened at same time this report was started. Reverts by Pugdad78 have continued ,

Without a doubt, the most clear violation of 3RR I've ever seen. They've undone themselves a few times, but even excluding that I count five reverts.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 06:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yet another revert Meters (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Still going 7RR now Meters (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

User:TE(æ)A,ea. reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the employee account did encourage people to report the Steam group, which is important for understanding why the group's following grew; quote from "Aftermath" is summarizing Belair's comments, so it's appropriate to attribute it to her"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1212878445 by Rhain (talk); I meant "'similar sentiments' according to journalists," which I have incorporated (with better phrasing) in this revision"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1212866876 by Rhain (talk); DEI is about "diverse representation," that's what DEI is; "safer working environments" is more broad then DEI (and so it is not germane to a DEI reference); also, there shouldn't be that much text under one Wiki-link in general; advert is appropriate because the discussion of "the company's operations" are written in a non-neutral manner (promotional), not little amount but most of lede/history"
 * 4)  "Minor changes and revert section name change—it is a "controversy" even though our sources/prose just show the one side"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* WP:3RR violation on Sweet Baby Inc. */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* This article needs more citations covering both sides of the "controversy" */"
 * 2)   "/* Advert */"

Comments:

They've continued to edit without responding since I warned them on talk. The final revert reverted both [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1212884418&oldid=1212884323&title=Sweet_Baby_Inc. this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1212884418&oldid=1212884323&title=Sweet_Baby_Inc. this]. -- Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The rule requires three or more, I've only made two: first one is re-wording, fourth one is a different change, not a revert (mainly because I didn't know that policy now discourages "Controversy" sections). Thank you for notifying me, though, the last time I was banned for "edit warring" I wasn't notified. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The fourth one was a revert of this edit, as you were aware (you said "revert" in your edit summary.) The first one (aka the final one I referenced above, since they're in reverse-chronological order) was a substantial revert of the two edits I linked - you do not have to literally use the "undo" button for something to be a revert. --Aquillion (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I "undo" when I revert to note that I'm reverting, you can't just call something a revert to get me to violate policy. For the name, as I said, I didn't know about the policy change. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the second one (labelled "revert") was not really a revert but a re-wording; I changed my action from a revert to a re-wording after I had started editing. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverts are defined in WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. It's pretty broad (sometimes overly-broad) but this is clear-cut. The substantial intent of the second one was clearly to undo this edit; it doesn't cease to be a revert just because you made other changes as well. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the purpose was to re-word that section, along the lines of what that user said. The objection (in the reversion) was to the OR-like phrasing, so I adjusted the phrasing. I had originally intended, in that edit, to delete any reference to the October 2023 Kiwi Farms threads; that is why I started to "undo" ("revert" in summary) the edit. I then changed my mind, and instead re-worded the extant provision. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 3RR is a bright line rule, but please note that admin can block you for less than if they believe you are warring. Even one revert, under the right circumstances.  You don't get to just keep reverting as long as you stay under 4 per 24 hours, and get off scot-free.  In this case, it is a clear violation of the bright line rule. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit in question unambiguously moved and reworded the line In October 2023, Sweet Baby attracted negative attention on Kiwi Farms, a web forum... in a way that reinstated the change to that sentence that you previously made here. There were other aspects that were also a revert, but that was the most clear-cut. Adding additional changes doesn't change the fact that it was a revert - if you intended for it to not be a revert, then you needed to leave that contested sentence in place, entirely untouched. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * FWIW, regardless of what happens here, with regard to the Sweet Baby Inc. article I've added the Contentious Topics warning to the talk page as it's covered by WP:GENSEX (which itself covers Gamergate related topics), and notified all users who have edited the article since March 6th (all prior edits are unrelated/from the draft) except those who have an "aware" template up or had a prior notice for this topic. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * by for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Hyperion82 reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Previous design didn't violate any Wikipedia rules. II explained in detail the reasons why your changes make this page are inconvenient to read. You did not give any reason for changes other than the inconsistency with the design of other pages that were also changed by you."
 * 1)  "Previous design didn't violate any Wikipedia rules. II explained in detail the reasons why your changes make this page are inconvenient to read. You did not give any reason for changes other than the inconsistency with the design of other pages that were also changed by you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on World Figure Skating Championships."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Figure Skating

Comments:
 * In addition, User:Hyperion82 refers to edits she doesn't like as "vandalism", which qualifies as a personal attack.
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Only in death reported by User:InfiniteNexus (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1212847316 by InfiniteNexus (talk) Per previous message. Please stop violating the NFCC policy."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1212845313 by InfiniteNexus (talk) Removal of clear violations of the NFCC policy is an exemption from edit warring. Please desist from blatant use of non-free media."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1212802415 by 2603:8001:3F02:518C:511C:83F1:2C18:40D7 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1212634026 by Goweegie2 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1212416343 by Kokaynegeesus (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1212377823 by TAnthony (talk) See previous. This article is about the literary character, not the film depicition."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Paul Atreides."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Infobox image removal */ +"

Comments:
 * Violations of WP:NFCC are exempt per WP:3RRNO. The article is about the literary character, who has been played by multiple actors on screen (of which there are free pictures). A depiction of the character could be easily created which strikes out point 1 of NFCC, and given both the article scope, subject barely mention the latest actor, this fails contextual significance (point 8) by miles. Its not a difficult policy to understand. "Can you create a free alternative? Yes? Dont use non-free media." "Does the picture add significantly to the article or reduce understanding by omission? No? Dont use the picture." It really isnt that complicated. Its just the usual crap arguments to avoid abiding by a policy which is deliberately strict to avoid editors, who are legally liable for their edits, being sued. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hostile comments like this one,, and   are not going to help your cause. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * User has reverted a seventh time: Special:Diff/1212848687. As have been explained to them multiple times, the fact that editors have disagreed with their incorrect interpretation of NFCC is evidence that this is not a clear, obvious, or blatant violation. This user has refused to get the point, instead claiming that their actions are exempt from 3RR — which explicitly states (emphasis in original):  InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No violation. Using a non-free image when a free image is clearly available is unambiguously a violation, and as such is exempt from 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A free image is not available. No image is present on the article or on Commons. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Free images of the actors who have played the character are available. Frankly, though, this is a fictional literary character, and probably doesn't need an image anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Free images of the actors who have played the character do not depict the subject of the article. This like saying articles about films should put free images of their cast and crew in the infobox, rather than a non-free poster. But regardless, this should be discussed on the article's talk page, and the user should not have reverted seven (!) times, against the consensus of multiple users. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And if this was an article about the film character you might have a point. But it isnt. Its an article about the literary character and the (existing) pictures of the actors who have played him are already in the article which barely mentions them to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then discuss on the article's talk page (as you were). Start an RfC if you disagree with the overwhelming consensus. The crux of the matter is, don't edit-war . InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Right now the article title is "Paul Atreides", not "Paul Atreides in the Dune novels". I agree it is entirely possible that in the future we could have separate articles on the character on the page and on screen (although I see that as sort of fancruft-y) But at present we don't, so that's not a valid argument against using the image. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont need to make an argument to not use non-free content. There needs to be a credible argument as to why non-free content should be used over free content. The article is not remotely about the film character, which even a skim-read should have shown you, regardless of what the title actually is, and I think insisting that because the title of the article doesnt explicitly exclude other depictions, we should ignore the NFCC is wikilaywering around a policy that has pretty bright lines about this sort of thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You understand the nuances of the NFCC about as well, it is clear to me, as a utensil perceives the taste of food. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Addendum. To be more specific about where you're going wrong, you seem to have concluded that just because the article has only one section about the character in other media it can only be about the character in the novel. If there's some policy I'm missing that supports this, please educate me. Otherwise, I would point you to WP:LABELFICTION, which refers to "the work(s) [characters] are a part of". Now, I know this could be taken as referring to just, say, a series of books by the same author. But I think the absence of clear text to that effect suggests an understanding that an article about a fictional character will discuss all works the character appears in, even adaptations. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (EC)Again though, you left out the important next part of the line "or could be created." There is literally nothing stopping anyone creating a picture of the literary character. There is a reason we dont use non-free pictures of live people (with the exceptions of some dictators) because there is always the ability to create one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes, Only in death, there is. As I went into detail below, there is this little thing called "copyright law", more specifically "copyright law as we apply it in our fair-use policy". Either you draw (by hand or with Illustrator, Inkscape or whatever) or have AI render a youngish dark-haired white man, but it would still look like just any such individual (of which there are millions in the world). A free image of either MacLachlan or Chalamet would be ... a free image of the actor, not the character. So, to look like the character, you'd have to add something specific to the Duneiverse, like as I said that special water-retention suit ... which is not everyday attire and thus for which any depiction still comes under Herbert's copyright as a derivative work and thus cannot be a free image. So, yes, "cannot be created" very much applies. And, by the way, you're also wrong about the fair-use policy precluding any use of a fair-use image for a living person: we can use one if:
 * it's iconic and the subject of reliably-sourced third-party non-trivial commentary in the accompanying article text,
 * it depicts the subject as they were at a time in the past when their appearance was a notable aspect of their public persona,
 * if their whereabouts have been unknown for some time and thus it is unlikely anyone could take a fresh picture,
 * if they're incarcerated and unlikely to have many public images taken of them, but there are some from prior to that time,
 * if they're notably reclusive and avoid the public eye (for the longest time this allowed a fair-use image of Terence Malick in the infobox, and if a recent fair-use photo of John Deacon or Thomas Pynchon became available, I'd advocate for using it over the considerably dated free images we currently use).
 * NFCC is not as absolute as too many editors think. Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but none of those bullet points apply here. The image of Chalomet is not iconic and the others really only apply to biographies - this is not a biography of Chalomet. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, but those bullet points are not the only reasons we use fair-use images of living people in articles. In my reading, they're all derived from FUC#8: "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." And it is that which this debate is grounded on. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No violation. Concur with Black Kite. Clear NFCC violation, exempt from 3RR. CIreland (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we sure about this? That section of 3RRNO is, to me, only valid where there is no doubt that the material in question could not be used under fair use (i.e., when people copy and paste large portions of material from elsewhere). Here I think the question's still open. I have just full-protected the article; I think that's the better solution. I have not seen evidence that there is a free image of Chalamet (or for that matter MacLachlan) that could be used. More to the point, however, such an image could not be free, even one drawn with software or created using AI since it would necessarily have to depict Atreides wearing something distinctive to the Duneiverse (i.e., one of those water-retention suits; I'm not sure what they're called as I'm not sufficiently familiar with the franchise), which is not everyday attire and thus is not copyright-exempt. So Only in death is incorrect, on US copyright law and policy, when he asserts that a free image could easily be created; any image of Atreides that is recognizably the character is going to be a derivative work which cannot be covered by fair use. Thus IMO using an image of Chalamet as Atreides would be acceptable. Further, I do not see the logic by which Only in death can assert that an article about a character that originated in a literary work must not be illustrated by an image of the character from a visual-media adaptation where there is no separate article on the character as portrayed in the latterm (which is to say, pretty much all our articles about fictional characters). Those articles necessarily include material about the character in those adaptations, not only what actor or actors have portrayed them, but how the character had been changed (and contrary to his claim on the article talk page, the section on portrayals in the media is longer than "two lines". I do not see any other article about a literary character from a work still under copyright later portrayed on screen where anyone has raised this objection. For instance Tyrion Lannister has a full image of Peter Dinklage in costume in the infobox; furthermore, our article on the character's father is illustrated by an image of Charles Dance in costume from the series despite his appearance being markedly different from the way Martin describes him in the books. Ideally, I think, the best solution for the infobox here would be images of both MacLachlan and Chalamet as the character, or better yet a triptych if there are any illustrations of Atreides from a book cover or comic book not derived from either actor's likeness that could be scanned and used. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Multiple users hold the view that this complies with NFCC; this is the only user acting against consensus. I will once again note that only copyright violations are exempt from 3RR; the fact that this is contested, and the overwhelming consensus is that this isn't a violation, shows that this is not unambiguous. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with CIreland and BK. Unambiguous doesn't mean perfectly harmonious, and it wouldn't be a 3RR exemption otherwise. Someone should start an FfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) striking 22:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be the best place to decide this; I agree. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * DC's points here have convinced me, and I've stricken part of my comment above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The policy says, "unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)". It beyond unquestionable that a free image of a any literary character "could be created". I'm not unsympathetic to your frustration but there is no way I am willing to block Only in death in this circumstance. CIreland (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think letting users exploit 3RR to go against consensus sets a bad precedent, but at the very least, I ask that the WP:STATUSQUO be restored per the longstanding consensus at the article. If necessary, I will start an RfC afterward to reinforce that consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Using consensus to override policy is equally a bad precedent. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not if the majority don't agree with one user's interpretation of that policy. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't a clear-cut case, so consensus is used to interpret policy. Usually, admins are expected to have a greater understanding of policy and can thus accurately "predict" how the community would interpret a policy. But today, let it be known that the ANEW process and a user got away with brazenly edit-warring. It's SNOWing over there at the RfC and it can probably be closed early. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * RfC initiated, see Talk:Paul Atreides. If the folks here are not going to do anything about Only in death's edit-warring behavior, please leave any further comments about the copyright status of the image at the RfC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * FfD would be better than an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The image will be automatically deleted if it's decided we don't want to use it. The RfC has been opened; I think we should take this discussion there. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just for one last time to bring this back around to the question of whether edit warring occurred. The relevant section of 3RRNO reads: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption."

For me this indicates that was edit warring and could properly have been blocked. We chose to deal with it differently (or I did, anyway). But there was a violation. We failed. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Bijzindia reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Kindly do not change this edit by saying other bigg boss or bigg brother pages dont have such information. We always welcome Innovative informative contributions"
 * 2)  "Do not delete the program logo add to this page"
 * 3)  "Undo revision [ have a discussion in talk regarding this matter before you make any change"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Other editor User:2A02:6B68:10:6100:2C77:613F:6B52:1872 Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The revert was done for a user which deleting the valuable information from the page Bijzindia (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No it’s no valuable information I have given my reasons in fact this user is not listening to others point I have given my reasons saying big brother snd bigg boss pages do not user that info. Concepts need to follow similar things, 2A02:6B68:10:6100:2C77:613F:6B52:1872 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not in edit war, we were disusing each other regarding the topic. And the mean time we both made some amendments in the article which we both don't have any objections. Bijzindia (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Both are still edit warring on Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5). Pinging active admins 331dot, Deb and MER-C. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Like over here he had added day entered for late entrants https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bigg_Boss_(Malayalam_season_5)&oldid=1212971816#Nomination_table whereas in here Celebrity Big Brother (British series 15) they don’t use it. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:2C77:613F:6B52:1872 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * . Also blocked the IP. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * both the user and an ip are at it again. havent blocked as didnt spot the notification till id already warned them. Amortias (T)(C) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We are not edit warring we haven’t even edited on that page. We are just discussing on talk page. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:54CE:D971:7BF1:43E1 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Fourixxxx reported by User:BilledMammal (Result: Blocked 2 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Move warring

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * , saying Fourixxxx moved page Fraser Island to K'gari, Queensland (island)
 * , saying Fourixxxx moved page Fraser Island to K'gari (island), Queensland: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): Previous editors have provided no verifiable evidence for their change, only anecdotal. Until then the name change remains.
 * , saying Fourixxxx moved page Fraser Island to K'gari (island): Perform requested move, see talk page: Fraser Island has now officially and unambiguously been renamed K'gari

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:K'gari, Queensland (island)

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

Comments:

While not a bright-line violation, the move warring is a violation of WP:RMUM and it appears they have no intention of stopping - in addition to the user talk page warning, at they were pinged to the talk page and told that they were going about this the wrong way and should not continue to make disputed moves, particularly since this move has been discussed five times previously. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Shortly after making this report Liz reverted the move, and in line with that I restored the pre-move content. Fourixxxx has once again their preferred content, although they haven't moved the article again yet. This is their third revert in the past 24 hours. BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Courcelles (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Protected the page given the obvious logged out continuing of the disruption. Courcelles (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd note that the logged out editing isn't necessarily the same user - that page has a long history of a range of IP editors changing the name in both directions. Turnagra (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:86.187.171.52 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1213224099 by MrOllie (talk)A list of publications does not make a cv. Most biographies have such lists/"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1213223718 by Bon courage (talk)See WP:BLP, and you are edit warring"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1213223261 by Bon courage (talk)Stroll on!! Take that to the Talk page!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1213222919 by Bon courage (talk)I just told you why in the edit summary. More to the point, why are you removing it???"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1212818235 by Bon courage (talk)Reverted bizarre removal of a book from the list of published works. There is no requirement for items in the list to be notable in their own right. Only the article subject must be notable. Very many biographies have lists of publications that include non-notable items. There is no reason for the book in question to be left off the list."

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

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

Comments:
 * 4RR as I write this. <b style="color:#9E0508;background:#FFFFFF"> Aloha27</b>  talk  19:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing admin, please look at this one carefully. The user Bon courage is clearly pushing his own POV here. That's clear from the article in question, and from his combative approach right across the board. Look at his editing history. 86.187.171.52 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also note, there are two separate edits here, so not a 4RR. 86.187.171.52 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * it's 5RR. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Clear reverts at 19:29, 19:31, 19:32, 19:36, 19:39. It does not matter that the material being reverted is different. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also put a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Leftregister reported by User:Bidgee (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  cropped image + previous cessna image was from a better angle
 * 2)  i think there's greater importance in having an image taken from a better angle. I appreciate that both your cessna images are of good quality, but i feel that the previous version had a less distracting background and was taken from a more appealing angle, with a better overview of the plane's features, and not just from a predominant side on view. The crop was done on the Chinook image because it appeared way too small in the thumbnail. I dont see harm in cropping out the rotor edges
 * 3)  With all due respect, WP:BRB just as easily applies to your edits too, especially when they are recent changes to a relatively established status quo. You have just as much obligation to consult the talk page first (and hence I urge you to). I appreciate that they're your images but that by no means gives you unchallenged authority to freely change and modify how they're used on this page without opposition (unless you delete them from wiki commons of course
 * 4)  Take it to the talk page. No, I'm not that user
 * 5)  Take it 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: [diff]

Comments:


 * . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

User:108.26.243.70 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: IP blocked for 2 weeks; R Prazeres warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (initially; see explanation)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (or see discussion here)

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

Comments:

IP edit-warring over their personal WP:OR. In their second revert they attempted to add sources, without understanding, much less fixing, the WP:OR problem. (They have since added more rambling after their latest revert . Ignored multiple warnings on user talk page, article talk page, and in edit summaries. R Prazeres (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I was just about to file a report here. Thanks. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some more edit-warring over latest addition since I wrote this:, . R Prazeres (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Not original research. The majority of the article is already direct quotes from the Bible. If that is OR then you people need to gut the article of those passages as well. I will stop trying to add my material when you do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.243.70 (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Explain to me what is the difference between this reference (already in the article)

In the biblical canon, the earliest, direct use of the phrase is in Isaiah 2: "For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low" (Isaiah 2:12). Another early use of the phrase is in Amos 5:18-20.[4] Wright suggests that the phrase was already a standard one, and Amos' hearers would take it to mean "the day when Yahweh would intervene to put Israel at the head of the nations, irrespective of Israel's faithfulness to Him."[4] Yet Amos declares "Woe to you who long for the day of the LORD! Why do you long for the day of the LORD? That day will be darkness, not light" (Amos 5:18 NIV). Because Israel had sinned, God would come in judgement on them. Thus, the day of the Lord is about God chastening his people, whether it be through the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem or a locust plague described in Joel 2:1–11.[4] Yet Joel 2:32 holds a promise that on the Day of the Lord, "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."

and this reference (part of my addition)

According to Zechariah 14, the day of the lord will be a time when Jerusalem is captured. Zechariah 14.2 "I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped.", before the Lord takes action and strikes the attacking nations with a plague. Zechariah 14.12 "This is the plague with which the Lord will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths."

aside from the formatting?108.26.243.70 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP for two weeks for edit-warring and the use of spam links. is warned for their edit-warring; if it weren't for the fact that the IP's edits were borderline vandalism, I would have considered blocking R Prazeres as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Brijvasi200 reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: All reverts in edit summary notified user they need consensus for the change, notified them through several warnings on their talk page about WP:ONUS. Despite that, user fails to respond and instead reverts the content, all but one time without an edit summary.

Comments:

Hi, as this is less obvious to me than it may seem to you: Is there a specific word or sentence for which you'd like to see a consensus for including before it is restored? For example, is "(Haider and Ghazal's daughter)" the problem? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , It is mainly the subheadings in the plot which has already been restored. The main point is that user fails to engage in discussion and instead blatantly reverts without any edit summaries. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't seen the subheadings being restored each time. Thanks, . I think you'll have to admit that the case is comparatively weak, and that there isn't much of a difference between disruptively asserting ownership and insisting on WP:ONUS in this case here. Edit summaries such as those in and, without even a link to the policy you're referring to, are pretty unlikely to mean anything to a newcomer even if they see them. Ideally, a section about your objection to the subheadings should exist at Talk:Rabb Se Hai Dua, and we could then invite the user to that discussion, perhaps even in the block reason of a partial block.
 * I will gladly admit that. I left a link on their talk page but you are correct about new users. I am hoping this gets them to slow down and read it and then come to the table for discussion. We will see. Thanks again. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

User:User110022 reported by User:57.140.16.57 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Original removal of promotional content added in February

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First revert to promotional version
 * 2) Second revert to promotional version
 * 3) Third revert to promotional version
 * 4) Fourth revert to promotional version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First edit warring notifier

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: AN report where they were informed of the paid editing requirements

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

Comments: Paid editor edit warring to restore their unsuitable content. Has been warned by multiple folks in multiple places. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * And they've finally backed off. Perhaps no further action is needed. 57.140.16.57 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User:ActionHeroesAreReal reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Warned user)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  – first revert
 * 2)  – second revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – low-traffic article, so user talk page.

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

Comments:

User:ActionHeroesAreReal keeps adding "British-Yemeni" to the lead section of this athlete. Have tried to explain using MOS:ETHNICITY and MOS:IDENTITY that Hamed is a British national – born and raised, no dual nationality – but they continue to revert. The sole source they've provided makes no mention whatsoever of Hamed being a Yemeni national, other than highlighting his parents' ancestry. This should be clearcut. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The warning was added for formal reasons 17 hours after the last revert, and 3 minutes before the report. The noticeboard template somehow encourages this behavior ("Warn the user if you have not already done so"), but the point of the warning is gone if a block is expected at the same time. I'll close this as "warned" as the main effect of this report is the edit warring warning. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I have now enforced WP:BLPRESTORE and created a discussion at . In general, WP:DISCFAIL is a good essay, although further reverts would likely simply justify a re-report and then probably actually a block. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (I have now adjusted the template's instructions, ). &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User:172.58.242.206 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1213943276 by Trlovejoy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1213942847 by Trlovejoy (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Gene Honda."
 * 2)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 3)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dan Baker (PA announcer)."
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Dan Baker (PA announcer)."
 * 5)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Robert Ford (sportscaster)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * for puffery and removal of sources. Strictly speaking, they didn't hit 3RR.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

User:JudaPoor reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: Pageblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Removed
 * 2) 19:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1213725278...
 * 3) 20:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1213727720...
 * 4) 12:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1213736039...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 13:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

Multiple editors have engaged in edit warring, but JudaPoor has continued it into the next day. After posting the 3RR warning on their user talk page, they responded, "This was not an edit war." Redraiderengineer (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Pageblocked for two weeks by ToBeFree.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

User:DeFacto reported by User:T9537 (Result: Declined, stick to AN)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: | Original before reverts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: | 3RR Warning Previous

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: | Talk Page link showing discussion

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

Comments:

Hi,

My apologies if this isn't the right place or done correctly.

I, among other editors / users, have been attempting to add information to a page, namely the "Shooting of Chris Kaba" page. .

Multiple different editors have added information recently released in the news and by the courts, specifically, the police officers name. This, time and time again, has been undone by a specific user, "Defacto" @DeFacto /. This information has been added multiple times by multiple different editors, and each time reverted by this specific user. His argument is that there is no sound policy based reasons for adding it and apparently a consensus hasn't been reached. However, 4 people including myself agreed via the talk page it should be added, it is relevant (and a pretty major part of this case, as it's one of the first times a police officer has been named in a case like this), policies support it and there is precedent. It's publically available information with plenty of sources. We all had a good discussion on the talk page and it's only "DeFacto" that doesn't seem to agree with it being added. And while others including myself have reverted his changes and / or added the information back, he removes it again citing policies relating to biographies of living people.

I'm unsure how we can come to any further of an agreement / consensus to this editors satisfaction, but in my opinion, enough interest / agreement has been shown to add the name. Maybe i'm missing something and i'm wrong here, and that's okay, but i believe the situation needs to be resolved.

Please also see that per this users talk page, it actually seems like "DeFacto" has a history of edit-warring & refusal to accept consensus, resulting in bans.

| Previous Ban | Previous Warning #1 | Previous Warning #2

T9537 (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You're already at AN. Pick one forum only.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

User:181.203.82.37 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Blocked)
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 Nicole Moreno."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked for 31h by another admin for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Minchuchui reported by User:北京555 (Result: Partially blocked for 2 weeks; nominator blocked for 2 weeks)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 北京555 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1)  ""Undid revision"
 * 2)  ""Undid revision "
 * from editing the pages List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita, List of countries by GDP (nominal), List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and The Economist Democracy Index directly. Talk page discussions are unaffected.
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Ioan.Church reported by User:Anupam (Result: Page protection raised to EC)
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:

Comments:


 * User:Ioan.Church has been edit warring to include unsourced information that he bases on 7thdaybaptist.blogspot.com. He has created multiple redirects to the non-notable internet group mentioned in this blogspot website that have been nominated by deletion by other editors. After he was warned by User:Ratnahastin, he responded by mocking that user. AnupamTalk 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * None of the links you provided show reverts of the article to the exact same conditions it was before because of intermediate edits by other people. Moreover the reverts are not within 24 hours. In order to meet the criteria for 3 revert rule the article will have to be reverted to the exact same condition 3 times within 24 hours. Your best option is to assume good faith and engage in constructive discussion to arrive at concensus. Concensus means a compromise where all disputing parties let go of bruised egos and give concessions. I have shown time and again that I am ready to do that. Most of my edits are on the talk page not on the article. All that is required here is for you to allow due weight in mention of the minority historical opinion which is represented by more than twice the population as the only 1035 Dunkards whose opinion is currently being presented as if it were the majority. Ioan.Church (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest an admin check to see if @Ioan.Church has made the reversion by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:2C7:67F:7AD0:A89C:36B1:1E0A:7F8D while logged out, and if the brand new user @Emetpodcast is a duplicate account. It seems very suspicious; both came to the page and made reverts without engaging in the talk page. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you would like that done you need to go to SPI, not here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I am happy for a qualified admin to go ahead and raise a checkuser request on all of us. I have nothing to hide and my edits are all in good faith. Ioan.Church (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I raised the semi-protection imposed earlier to extended-confirmed for the duration so that Ioan will not be able to edit the page and continue to restore poorly sourced content, or content that misinterprets or misstates what is reported in reliable sources, in disregard of apparent consensus on the talk page. Essentially he is blocked from editing this article without anything going in his block log (And keep it that way, Ioan. Your attitude hasn't helped your case here). It would, I imagine, help if more of the editors knowledgeable about this sort of thing were recruited to this discussion to make for a stronger consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Thank you for stepping in. You are correct that "if more of the editors knowledgeable about this sort of thing were recruited to this discussion to make for a stronger consensus." Three editors disputing a topic is slim "community consensus" at best. But the topic is probably unique enough that getting several more truly knowledgeable editors on board the discussion could be difficult.If disruption continues when protection is over, perhaps that would be the route to take. I did something like that some years ago with another article, but forget the process. Mikeatnip (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

User:RBG8877 reported by User:Patken4 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * User:RBG8877 keeps adding unencyclopedic, unsourced information to an article of a living person. Patken4 (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. I have added a link to the living person's own words as a citation.  Sorry but if that isnt "reliable" i dont know what is. RBG8877 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an obvious WP:BLP problem and per WP:BLPRESTORE even restoring this once would be a problem, let alone 4 times. MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Mushy Yank reported by User:Counterfeit Purses (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  reverting redirect (AFD closure)
 * 2)  revert, no talk page discussion
 * 3)  revert, no talk page discussion
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

The article was redircted as the result of an AFD in December. Since then, another film which includes Shariq Hassan in the cast has been released. Mushy Yank apparently feels that this negates the AFD. They have signaled their intention to edit war in the statement "NO. This is a useless bureaucratic action. The subject"s notability HAS CHANGED. Even the Afd itself makes a case for a standalone page. JUST READ IT and read the guidelines about page recreations. Thank you". Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , please have a look at WP:G4 and its restrictions. You're practically requesting a G4 deletion in a case that isn't covered by the policy: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." This may well be the case, and discussion instead of speedy deletion (or blanking/redirecting) is the best approach in such a situation.
 * If you believe the article needs to be redirected again, please start another deletion discussion. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I had just finished typing out a long decline saying the same thing. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Tdadamemd19 reported by User:Robynthehode (Result: Sock indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "DUMMY EDIT - Robynthehode (talk), the WP:Rollback policy you cite clearly states at the very top that "occasional exceptions may apply".  Yet for some reason, you present it as some kind of absolute.  This likewise ingnores WP:IAR.  The ultimate Wikipedia Policy.  I presented very clearly my rationale for reverting.  The info continues to be LACKING in this article.  Nowhere presented visually."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1214384087 by Remsense (talk) Talk Section added.  Please read the argument for keeping this before anyone here acts on any urge to revert this vital info.  Alternatively, if anyone has a better image to convey this info, I would be ALL FOR THAT.  The argument is that something is better than nothing."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1214382646 by Remsense The entire world has visceral experience with a football field. A soccer pitch is essentially the same size.  And a yard is not a foreign concept either, as it too compares quite closely with a meter.  As for being unencyclopedic in style, I suggest to all that this is a WORTHWHILE compromise, until such a more 'professional looking' image is made. The INFO is far more valuable."
 * 4)  "/* Distances and scales */ It has been a decade since this image was published to Wikipedia.  It is a rare depiction of BOTH sizes AND distances shown to scale.  This is information which has been lacking in this article.  Images presented to the public here have shown only one or the other.  Never both.  It is high time that this image be included here.  This is VITAL info to be included in this article.  It is one thing to say it in words, but quite another to actually show it visually."
 * 5)  "/* Distances and scales */ Adding link to an article which explains how the human eye sees, with background objects toward the distant 'vanishing point' appear much smaller than objects in the foreground."
 * 1)  "/* Distances and scales */ Adding link to an article which explains how the human eye sees, with background objects toward the distant 'vanishing point' appear much smaller than objects in the foreground."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Justdoinsomeedtits reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result:Already Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1214584975 by ThaddeusSholto (talk) This has been moved to the talk page. If you have an issue with the "mostly negative" descriptor on a page with mostly negative reviews, I implore you to take the discussion there rather than continue to vandalize and engage in edit wars."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1214583093 by ThaddeusSholto (talk) Refrain from vandalizing this page, please. If you'd like to provide examples of actually positive reviews, you're more than welcome; otherwise, use the talk page for discussion rather than engaging in an edit war"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1214560780 by Jessintime (talk) Because the vast majority of the reviews quoted on the page, even the ones in the section for positive ones, are clearly negative. I don't really have an opinion on the song, it's OK if you like it, but please stop vandalizing the page to reflect that"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1214533274 by Jessintime (talk) I don't have a "narrative"; since you used that term, you clearly do, though. Do you know what the words in those reviews mean?"

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

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

Comments:

Edit warring and blanking content in spite of other editors disagreeing with their edits. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

^^ "ThaddeusSholto" is the user actually guilty of editing warring and vandalism, to an extent that he deserves some sort of reprimand - loss of privileges, a temporary ban or worse. Incredibly disruptive behavior. The justifications I have provided for my edits on both the revision history page and Talk page of the article in question, and his lack of any of the aforementioned, make that plainly clear. Disruption for disruption's sake. Justdoinsomeedtits — Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Justdoinsomeedtits for this edit combined with the obvious 3RR vio, and the long history of disruptive editing and NPA blocks that indicates they are WP:NOTHERE. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

User:FMSky reported by User:Sideswipe9th (Result: Stale / warned / voluntary pause)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Multiple, see inline below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Restored a NPOV/POV tag he had, after it was
 * 2)  Partially restored of  that was  being a close paraphrase
 * 3)  Partially reverted text that had  for proseline issues, as a result partially restoring text from the edit at 05:06, 18 March.
 * 4)  Restored the exact same text from the 15:42, 18 March edit after it had been  editor
 * 5)  Removed text that had been added over two edits on  and
 * 6)  Partially reverted to restore text from 19:16, 18 March edit after it had

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  3RR warning yesterday, after a violation of 3RR, resolved by FMSky self-reverting
 * 2)  3RR warning yesterday, after another violation of 3RR, edit was undone by another editor and  as "already done"
 * 3)  3RR warning today, after another violation of 3RR,  as "This wasnt an edit war, i suggested multiple different versions"
 * 4)  Second 3RR warning today

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

FMSky has now received 4 3RR warnings in the last 48 hours, made by my count 6 reverts in the last 24 hours, and at least 11 reverts in the last 48 hours. 4 of which were for content removed on good-faith BLP objections (see diffs in warning #1). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * yes like already stated on my talk page, these were all separate issues in different sections of the article. I didn't edit war to restore same versions over and over again. FMSky (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:3RR An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. (emphasis from the original). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it even a revert if I made completely seperate unrelated edits to the page? However, I get that people dont like my edits on this page for whatever reason, and will stay away from the article for the near future --FMSky (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Help:Reverting reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Each of the diffs listed above restore the text of the article to an earlier revision of the article, some of those earlier revisions (like for diffs 2, 3, 4, and 6) were edits by yourself from earlier today or yesterday that had themselves been undone by other editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, guess im screwed then --FMSky (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * and, the article would likely benefit from others being able to edit it without interference from both of you, who have reverted and edited quite assertively there in the last days. Can you both step back from the article for a week? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That was actually what I was originally thinking. A self-imposed 1 week topic ban. Would be better for my health too lmao --FMSky (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm don't think I agree with your reading of the situation here. Yes I've been assertive on my reverts against FMSky over the last two days, but I'm not the only editor who has been reverting FMSky. Yes I've made six reverts in the same time period, however two of those are exempt from the edit-warring policy per WP:3RRBLP and WP:BLPRESTORE, and FMSky was adding content against a rough consensus. Only one other editor has been reverted in the same time period, by another editor, for introducing phrasing that was unverifiable to the sources. The issue at play here surrounding edit warring from FMSky in a contentious topic formed part of the basis of his indef AE TBAN from Operation Underground Railroad and Tim Ballard, and his 1 year ANI TBAN from transgender-related topics. I would argue that this is more of the same behaviour in a closely adjacent culture war topic.
 * However if after reading what I've said in the paragraph above you truly think it would be helpful for me to step away from the article for a few days to a week, then sure I'll do so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * adding content against a rough consensus Just a quick note that this consensus doesn't actually exist and this part was even previously inserted by a user who is on your side of the "culture war" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Baby_Inc.&diff=next&oldid=1213417205 --FMSky (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My "side of the 'culture war could not be less relevant to consensus nor the edit itself—it was allowed to be reverted regardless of who added it, and I agree with its removal. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 00:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Another example of a recent user complaing about bias on this site: 1. The only people who are still in favor of supressing the information are basically Sideswipe9th and Aquillion. I think an RfC could solve all the problems --FMSky (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , the article hasn't been edited for over 24 hours since I asked you both to pause, and I'd say this shows that the main source of dispute and disruption has stopped editing. Whether that includes you or not isn't something I can prove this way, but chances are that your contributions (including any exempt from the edit warring policy) were optional and someone else would have performed them early enough in case they were actually severely needed. The article currently probably needs neither your nor 's editing, and persistent issues with 's edits should probably separately be dealt with at WP:AE or WP:ANI. A 24-hour strict 3RR block against everyone who formally "reverted" more than three times during a phase of highly active editing, after over 24 hours of no edits, doesn't seem to be a real option. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

User Rhain just violated 3RR too (1, 2, 3, 4)  -- FMSky (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it would be a good idea to let him know on his talk page and give him a chance to self-revert. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That fourth edit is not a reversion—but, to echo, you're more than welcome to contact me directly or just report me as well, rather than informally mention me here without notification. Thanks. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 00:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I also find it a bit concerning that Sideswipe9th seems to want to silence every user not agreeing with their viewpoint, having already filed a report for another user yesterday and proposing excessive topic bans https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1214137303 Its getting increasingly hard to believe this user is acting in good faith --FMSky (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * FMSky is a very blatant POV editor on this topic who has been actively trying to push the usage of unreliable sources on the talk page for a couple days now. They have been edit warring with multiple editors in order to try and push claims in the article proper that are either not supported by the reliable sources used or trying to utilize aforementioned unreliable sources. Silver  seren C 00:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I expected nothing else from you -- FMSky (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My view as a bystander, recently created user, who has read through the talk page over and over again can attest to FMSky’s grievances. Though as previously stated I am a new user so my view on this matter may mean little. Verte34 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Broader issues should probably be taken to WP:AE (since Sweet Baby Inc. falls under the gensex WP:CTOP per here.) WP:3RRN is just for putting out the immediate fire. --Aquillion (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Noto Emoji v2.034 23f3.svg Stale / warned / voluntary pause &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Melvin Hudson reported by User:CanonNi (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* My edit to Kindattu */ ridiculous"
 * 2)  "/* March 2024 */ revert offensive shite"
 * 3)  "/* March 2024 */ no"
 * 4)  "/* My edit to Kindattu */ take your bigotry elsewhere"
 * 1)  "/* My edit to Kindattu */ take your bigotry elsewhere"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Melvin Hudson."
 * 2)   "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:JanaBora."
 * 3)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:2002Sydney2020."
 * 4)   "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."
 * 2)   "/* March 2024 */ expand comment"

Comments:

Multiple attacks targeted personally at other editors. Warned multiple times and commented. Sorry if I submitted this through the wrong report type. CanonNi (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked - it doesn't look like Melvin is here to build an encyclopedia so I have blocked them indefinitely. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:202.55.83.233 & User:Cankin3 reported by User:Nkon21 (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Likely a sockpuppet or meatpuppet claiming to be an airport employee, who persists that the logo of the airport management group should be used, rather than the previous logo that was perfectly fine. After giving them why it was not an improvement, they continued to edit war while ignoring the points I brought up. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  20:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:51.6.6.157 reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked two months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rectified for fair English representation for someone born and raised here and for common sense and consistency with other wiki artllces of English engineers (which are the majority!) If  Thomas Telford can be called Scottish (whos name origin isn't even Scottish) then we can you loser!"
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

Comments:

User is a single purpose account looking to make sure people they considers English are labeled as such, not using a source to backup their changes. Has edit warred at multiple pages and is generally belligerent (e.g. "Rectified for fair English representation for someone born and raised here and for common sense and consistency with other wiki artllces of English engineers (which are the majority!) If Thomas Telford can be called Scottish (whos name origin isn't even Scottish) then we can you loser!") <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#008080"> Cerebral726 </b> --<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#3e4f73">(talk)</b> 12:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:ShownDownl reported by User:Alalch E. (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Article and its citations falsely doxxes an uninvolved individual who was misidentified as StoneToss. A discussion is already under way through info-en-q@wikipedia.org."
 * 2)  "Article and links falsely gives out a name of an unconfirmed individual. This is WP: LIBEL. Wait for the email discussion to conclude. Thank you."
 * 3)  "Seeing as you're the one who created the page: wait until the WP: LIBEL email is concluded."
 * 4)  "This is libelous content. Requesting that no new information is added until my response to info-en-q@wikipedia.org is concluded. The citations are outdated and mistakenly label different users as being the same (wrongly accused) individual."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Page history clear request */ Reply"

Comments: See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents—Alalch E. 16:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it even possible to WP:LIBEL someone who has not been named on Wikipedia?  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:ca:4400:1660:384b:f34:d815:69e1 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

And add to that PA's as well, and being a SPA. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * for the personal attacks, now rev-del'ed. Favonian (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Rambling Rambler reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User's consistent removal of cited work in WP:LEAD. User's initial reasoning: "Absolutely not the place for it, even if it wasn't using questionable sources." Upon user's second reversal, user states, "WP:ONUS warrants consensus for inclusion". --In my experience ONUS has not been too clear on the matter, leaving itself open for interpretation stating that it is "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." --However, there is currently one (single) user in dispute, not two or more, which is another reason why I had restored the article while stating this concern on the article's talk page in a willingness to discuss further. Warned user to not end up breaking WP:3RR in my restoration edit and began engaging in talk discussions as per the user's request. User ignored the warning on the restoration edit and also ignored the warning rendered on user's talk page while promptly removing the issued warning.

Furthermore, upon user's third reversible, instead of engaging in the article's talk page with me, user was preoccupied making an edit change to another article I had recently edited by altering my wording which is in direct relation to the aforementioned article. (See: Jimmy Chérizier user's edit], my edit). Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no violation of the 3RR here, because it's only on the 4th revert that it becomes a technical infringement. Furthermore, I agree with Rambling Rambler that the added material is not of sufficient importance to include in the lead of this sovereign state article. I suggest you engage with the dialogue on the talk page and refrain from re-adding it unless there's a consensus. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously dude?
 * I haven't broken 3RR (nor do I intend to). So I struggle to see this report as anything but done with mal-intent.
 * WP:ONUS, which you've quoted here, clearly states "the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" which means you as you included the content that's been disputed. You didn't seek to achieve this but just re-inserted the disputed content. I removed the edit-warring template from my talk page (as I am perfectly allowed to do) because you'd spammed it at the same time as re-inserting disputed content and opening an article talk page discussion so could've simply tagged me.
 * Furthermore, upon user's third reversible, instead of engaging in the article's talk page with me, user was preoccupied making an edit change to another article I had recently edited by altering my wording which is in direct relation to the aforementioned article
 * The edit to the Jimmy Cherizier article (which is clearly backed by policy) is clearly dated 23:08 UTC (which, you thanked me for btw), which not only happened 12 minutes before you actually bothered to finally try to establish consensus for your disputed edits on the Haiti article but 22 minutes before the "third revert". So unless you're suggesting I've engaged in time travel I don't get what your line of argument here is.
 * Also, as can be easily seen on the Haiti talk page I did engage with you an hour before this frankly bad-faith and malicious 3RR report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the record, this report is for the engagement in edit-warring even though user did not actually break 3RR which is not a necessary condition for this type of engagement. Any concerning issues were best resolved on the talk page prior to reversals, removals and other accompanying edits in relation to the subject. Will such engagement be the recourse moving forward regarding cited material a user may not agree with before a discussion takes place while ignoring warnings to cease in edit-warring? Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the bottom line is that there was a disagreement, and both yourself and reverted several times back to your favoured version. So a WP:TROUT is due to both of you for that. I'm WP:INVOLVED now, having participated in the talk page discusssion, but I don't see that an admin could declare one of you disruptive but not the other. In any case, the edit war has now abated, so no action seems necessary. It also seems clear that consensus from the discussion so far at Talk:Haiti is against including the disputed material.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru what I don't get is why they made this report despite admitting I didn't break the rules this noticeboard is for enforcing, and chose to make it a substantial amount of time after myself and another editor had made it clear on the talk page their additions weren't appropriate. The fact they're quoting policy but acting in the exact opposite manner to what it plainly says (i.e. arguing WP:ONUS is consensus for exclusion when it's consensus for inclusion) and that they made sure to appear to jump through the right hoops to make this report (while bringing up irrelevant issues on another article) just makes me think this is a "Hail Mary" attempt to game the system and hope I get hit with a block by an admin that doesn't look too much into the report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per above. And it's gone stale to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:76.50.244.14 reported by User:Psychologist Guy (Result: Blocked for 72 hours and alerted to CTOPS)
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:

Single purpose IP, repeatedly moving sourced material from Max Lugavere's Wikipedia lead. A discussion at WP:FTN has revealed they hold fringe views about nutrition. Far from neutral editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a false claim, as Psychologist Guy is clearly biased in favor of veganism/vegetarianism, which Max Lugavere has spoken out against. He is not an impartial or neutral party suitable to be editing Max's page. Psychologist Guy has also removed sourced material that has been contributed for no apparent reason (i.e. announcement of Max's documentary: https://deadline.com/2024/03/little-empty-boxes-release-date-abramorama-1235843326/. 76.50.244.14 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a false claim, you have been edit-warring and reverting the same reliable-sourced content. Over at WP:FTN you have also been told not to continue with personal attacks . Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * since this was two violations and it took place on an article in a contentious topic area (CT/CF). User will duly be alerted. I will also be adding a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll also note the user's clear issue with AGF as evinced above and at the FTN thread. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Redacted II reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-3 outcome to success
 * 2) 19:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-3 outcome to success
 * 3) 12:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of launch outcome bar charts
 * 4) 15:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-5+ table
 * 5) 16:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-5+ table
 * 6) 14:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT-5+ table
 * 7) 17:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of IFT outcomes and speculation template (series)
 * 8) 19:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Revert of speculation inline tags (series)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 19:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

Multiple editors have engaged in edit warring across SpaceX Starship-related articles, but Redacted II has performed a large number of reverts on this article, including five reverts within a roughly 28-hour period.
 * Here are the edits I reverted:
 * The first was an edit that declared IFT-3 a failure. This goes against WP:STATUS QUO, so I reverted it. The second revert was for the same reason.
 * The third was undoing an extremely bold edit (by a user who is known for making bold edits). It deleted an important part of the article, so I reverted it.
 * The next 3 reverts were re-adding sourced material. This had been debated a month prior on the talk page.
 * The 8th revert was removing speculation tags, as the material being declared speculative was sourced.
 * The user who made the majority of edits reverted often disguised deleting content by making other changes as part of the same edit. IIRC, this is an extremely bad-faith practice.
 * I'll provide the Dif's for all of the disruptive edits shortly (I don't want to do it via source-editing)Redacted II (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 1 They hid removing the chart in an edit that they described as "detail about the flight plan"
 * 2They changed the color of several cells in the table for IFT-2 and IFT-1. I informed them in my reversion that there was precedent for what colors to use, and directed them to an example)
 * 3 They deleted the y-tick marks on the # of launches chart, describing their edit with "weird numbers now fixed".
 * 4 They declared cited material speculation
 * Yes, I made a lot of reversions. But breaking the 3RR rule was done because of a disruptive editor. and since following 3RR would have prevented me from maintaining the Starship Flight Tests article, so I had to ignore the rule.
 * Earlier today, I requested that the Starship Flight Tests article be protected, due to the disruptive edits.
 * (If the defendant commenting here is against the rules of ANI, then please delete both this comment and the one above) Redacted II (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are exceptions to 3RR, but maintaining the status quo, color warring, BRD, and removing maintenance templates are generally not recognized.
 * The "weird numbers now fixed" edit is in a series of edits to the bar charts, so it should be viewed as a whole.
 * This appears to lean more toward preserving a preferred version of the article than reverting obvious vandalism. Redraiderengineer (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The "weird numbers now fixed" edit is in a series of edits"
 * Still, it completely deleted a critical part of the chart. And deleted info backed by a source (as had been noted before in the talk page. If they had checked, they would have known that the edits they made were disruptive).
 * " maintaining the status quo, color warring, BRD, and removing maintenance templates are generally not recognized."
 * And if they were disrupting just one of those, I'd agree with you. But this editor was violating multiple precedents, violating the status quo, and seemingly due to a dislike for SpaceX (and thus, vandalism).
 * While they have never admitted to any such bias, it is very suspicious that multiple editors who started editing on or immediately after IFT-3 have been calling for IFT-3 to be a failure. At least one of them is being investigated for sockpuppetry.
 * This, combined with their editing history, indicates that they are editing solely to push a narrative. And I believe that constitutes vandalism. Redacted II (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , vandalism is intentional disruptive editing, which most disruptive editing isn't. Vandalism is done with an intent of damaging the encyclopedia, but even highly stubborn edit warring is usually done with a genuine intent of improving the encyclopedia against others' wrong ideas. So please avoid calling it "vandalism" if your main point is that it's simply "disruptive". &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree This user should be immediately unblocked. He is a high quality editor that constantly needs to revert vandalism committed on many SpaceX-related pages. Ergzay (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , I encourage you to read my 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) message about vandalism, and to have a closer look at the block settings that apply to one specific page only. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:88.230.170.214 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: Page semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "User edit warring and trying to push point of view without consensus and change is not an improvement. Reverted"
 * 2)  "Your stated explanation "changed developing to developed" While your actual intention was to make it look like it was a project of both TAI and BAE systems which isn't the case. And your "source" doesn't trump previous sources. Your change is not an improvement in any way. Please do not edit war and get a consensus."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1214501514 by Shadow4dark (talk) It's not a "project of both" as text implies but rather BAE is a sub-contructor. Get a consensus on talk page before making such edit."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1214437757 by FoxtAl (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on TAI TF Kaan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Note This appears to be part of a wider Turkish nationalist edit warring campaign which is also taking place on Fifth-generation fighter — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 12:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * New ip evade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/88.230.181.243 Shadow4dark (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. The anonymous edits have been reverted by at least three other editors. This looks to be an IP-hopping war (three different IPs all from the 88.230.* range making similar edits), so a block of a single IP wouldn't be enough. Lecturing others in your edit summaries about the importance of consensus is not a substitute for real discussion. I note that the article on Fifth generation fighter was having seimilar problems and is now semied for a month by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Jolly73881 reported by User:Griboski (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (I posted on the user's talk page instead)

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

I've actually warned this user on their talk page about misrepresenting sources on another article and attempted to discuss the matter with them. They haven't acknowledged or tried to discuss except for saying I was annoying on my TP.

Regarding the edit-warring/dispute on this article, I reached out to them and attempted to reach a compromise. Their response was "chill out weirdo". So they're clearly not interested in building an encyclopedia. This was all before their last two reverts. --Griboski (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)