Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive480

User:Nyxaros reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1214559121 by 2601:282:8100:790:583F:BDA8:3925:7C24 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Rv disruptive; discuss on the talk page"
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1214434364 by Nyxaros (talk): Vandal, unexplained removal of sourced content"
 * 4)  "/* Critical response */ rv"
 * 5)  "Restored revision 1214224105 by TropicAces (talk): Blocked IP returned again..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 22:34, 18 March 2024 diff hist  −342‎  User talk:Nyxaros ‎ "And is your poorly edited version that shows more than necessary worth using? You can go to the talk page to discuss your opinion to remove a file with referenced text, but I don't think anyone will agree with that."
 * 2) 21:31, 14 March 2024 diff hist  −10‎  Dune: Part Two "You have no idea how to write an encyclopedic article, do you?"
 * 3) 3:11, 2 March 2024 diff hist  −481‎  The Handmaiden ‎ "So notable and reliable..." (sarcasm)
 * 4) 13:11, 2 March 2024 diff hist  −320‎  The Handmaiden ‎ "also so very sourced..." (doubling down on unnecessary sarcasm)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  20:49, 26 February 2024 diff hist  −1,058‎  User talk:Nyxaros ‎ "stay away from my talk page"

Comments:

Reported on my talk page by IP, blocked some time ago for edit warring so knows the “rules”. I protected the page. But off to bed now! Doug Weller talk 21:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , and . So I'm at three now. If you are gonna block me for reverting the IP socks and obvious vandalism, do so. ภץאคгöร  21:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * After a deeper look I think this is being confused with a simple page protection request. Has more to do I think with contributor ภץאคгöร  constantly bullying others, violating the 3RR rules, and less to do with the anonymous IP trolls he is provoking. The block log indicates he has been banned twice, once for violating this rule and also for uncivility edit-warring. Subsequent LTA by the editor over the years who slipped through the cracks in the form of obvious uncivil attacks in content disputes. Grows emboldened over time and seemingly exploits blocked users to push a point of view and mask his own disruptive behavior. Relying on two wrongs makes a right logic. Several edit wars taking place over multiple film articles. Dune Part 2 is the most recent example. Recommend an indef if possible from movie articles until this editor can prove he'll play nicely with others. Telling problematic edits like this demonstrate this user is not here to constructively build an encyclopedia.63.149.127.130 (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller When I was checking out the other reports, I noticed one of the moderators passing through has possibly mistakenly misunderstood your report to suggest this was only about page protection. Almost missed it myself. I've expanded the report with some examples that better display the issue here. Worth taking a second look. Off to bed myself! 63.149.127.130 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bold of you to assume that others have misunderstood when clearly they have not, but thanks for revealing your IP to show that you changed it just to write about five years ago in this section, whichever one you are. Nice try! ภץאคгöร  00:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * for three days, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't make any sense of that. Who changed what 5 years ago? If you think that's me editing as an IP, you're way off base. I"d have to be crazy to do that. Doug Weller  talk 09:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you took it personally when it is clear that IP socks were mentioned, but this discussion is over. ภץאคгöร  10:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because your reply was to me. See the indentations. Glad to hear it wasn't meant for me. But this is getting ridiculous. Doug Weller  talk 11:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. It was IP who pinged you. And yes, it has been ridiculous for quite some time actually. ภץאคгöร  15:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:EditorAtLarge1976 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Deleted pejorative and redundant description. Next line describes that the IEA is associated with the "New Right""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA that has been edit warring over this for months now. Discusses edit, then ignores consensus repeatedly to repeat edit. Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ., in future, please fill out the report completely.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Bbb23 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Алексей 1000 reported by User:Jonathan Deamer (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 1901–present */Correcting historical mistake"
 * 2)  "/* 1901–present */Nonsensical historical content removed"
 * 3)  "/* 1901–present */Historical mistake fixed"
 * 4)  "/* 1901–present */Corrected historical mistake"
 * 5)  "/* Events */Corrected historical mistake"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Hellaciousphlegm reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1214862406 by Soetermans (talk) You are driving me insane. you do not play video games, you do care about this page, talk to other editors before reverting my change again"
 * 2)  "placated that guy again. removed the reference to stylization"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1214860422 by Soetermans (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1214850279 by Soetermans (talk) This was a unnecessary restore, if you have a problem with the new revisions please just edit it instead."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1214850279 by Soetermans (talk) This was a unnecessary restore, if you have a problem with the new revisions please just edit it instead."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Thoughts from a random editor */ re"
 * 2)   "/* Thoughts from a random editor */ re"

Comments:

Note that Hellaciousphlegm is now at 4 reverts today. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I am done with reverts until I can either find a better reason to include The Final War in the plot synopsis. Hellaciousphlegm (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed my edit in question. Hellaciousphlegm (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This one was still too many, and Woodroar took care of it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:36.73.126.53 reported by User:RodRabelo7 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: IP continues to insist on reverting. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31h by .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

User:83.51.42.63 reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: Stale)
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:

Last edits were four days ago. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

User:185.104.63.112 reported by User:Smasongarrison (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1215052850 by Smasongarrison (talk): It's equally disruptive to feed articles of dependent territories to categories of the metropolitan. Stop now."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1215049765 by Smasongarrison (talk): To match similar categories of British overseas territories, overseas France, etc."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Adding incorrect categories on Category:19th-century church buildings in Hong Kong."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Category:19th-century church buildings in Hong Kong."
 * 3)  This one is clearly from the same person.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasongarrison (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Categorization */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Category request: Category:Legislators by dependent territories */ Reply"

Comments:

Also this one. It's clearly the same IP. . They've also gone over the dispute the renaming of a category and express their opposition to renaming/reparenting. And there has been discussion about this on Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_21 Mason (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding incorrect categories Which exactly were the wrong categories added? Also this one. It's clearly the same IP. What? I didn't even know there was such an edit by someone else before you mentioned. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Counter-reporting :

With this message I am filing to counter-report Smasongarrison for edit warring (just click "previous edit" in the diffs he/she quoted above to see his/her earlier edits). He/she forces his/her way to disregard the preexisting consensus that items of dependent territories don't get fed straight into categories for the metropolitan states and refuses to back down. 185.104.63.112 (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP for 3 months as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bbb23. (And for the record, my pronouns are she or they. None of this he/she nonsense.) Mason (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 I think that it's the same person who is now posting on my user page. User talk:Smasongarrison Mason (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Ramirami60 reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The information attempting to be added is conspiracy gibberish sourced to a YouTube video and personal opinions (claiming "censorship on such discussions by the very influential Jewish lobby groups".) It is borderline antisemitic and doesn't belong in the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * thaddeussholto is spreading complete lies about info I have added. I have cited on yt among 4-5 others some are peer reviewed. the yt video is published by a renounced jewish scholar and Rabbi and I have also refrences his organisation's link to show it's not just some random vid on yt by a non scholar. all other citations are accurate and come from jewush and or kabballah and or freemason scholars and or officials, but the reporter is too lazy to read them as they are long, so they resort to yelling "antisemitism", which is ironic as my info specifically talks about such censorship and the harms to Jewish people it poses. Ramirami60 (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

They reverted it again but this time added another source that doesn't support any of this. The new edit used this source for the claim "The view by freemasons themselves that Kabballah is the root of freemasonry" when that source itself explicitly says "any historical links are strictly conjectural and unsupported." None of this belongs in the article and they continue to edit war it in regardless. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

User:118.211.170.85 reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

Three IPs all from the same location and likely the same person edit warring over war results at Sino-Vietnamese War Hist:. Language suggests unwillingness to compromise, adhere to WP:RS, and here to POVPUSH:. Qiushufang (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * for three months by . Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Corrected and updated."
 * 2)  "Updated and Correct after correction being removed. Do not remove correct facts and information from Wikipedia regarding the subject matter in question."
 * 3)  "I updated information missing that is relevant to the subject matter in question."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Agnostic atheism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Requested user discuss concerns on talk page, rather than continuing to add information. TRL (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Additional edits added - Special:Diff/1215245710 TRL (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE by .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Softlemonades reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: warned/stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

Editor removed citations a couple of weeks ago; two editors opposed the removal on talk. Softlemonades today started edit warring to implement their earlier changes against that consensus. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The first edit was not a revert, I replaced self-published sources with RSes. It did not implement earlier changes. I did not perform more than three reverts.
 * See What is a reversion? Any edit to existing text could be said to reverse some of a previous edit. However, this is not the way the community defines reversion, because it is not consistent with either the principle of collaborative editing or with the editing policy. Wholesale reversions (complete reversal of one or more previous edits) are singled out for special treatment because a reversion cannot help an article converge on a consensus version.
 * Editor removed citations a couple of weeks ago; two editors opposed the removal on talk. The other editor did not object, they agreed they could be used before I brought up COPYLINK. And WP:Consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority).
 * Cambial did not answer on Talk other than to say he would not explain things because my uestions  were WP:REHASH. I asked why the self-published sources were needed but no answer. I asked why linking to release page to stolen self published leaks didnt violate COPYLINK but no answer.
 * Cambial has a history of edit warring on different pages and has been blocked from this page before Softlem (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Softlemonades claim that they did not implement earlier changes is not correct. Their earlier edit was to remove several citations. They removed these same citations again in every later edit (including the first one), as the diffs readily demonstrate. Softlemonades repeated their arguments on talk numerous times in response to other editors. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Softlemonades repeated their arguments on talk numerous times in response to other editors. What other editors?
 * Asking you to explain your argument is not repeating mine. Not answering is Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors
 * You just say I see no copylink problem. but do not explain why linking to stolen self published material is not WP:LINKVIO However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders.
 * The page that indexes it is COPYLINK violation because it hosts the COPYVIO material. There is no need for sources that might be COPYLINK Softlem (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your claims are inaccurate, but regardless, they have no bearing on and are not an excuse for your edit warring against the consensus view on talk. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Claiming that Syria Files and Stratfor email leak do not involve third parties is inaccurate Softlem (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While there is no violation for now, I'm not closing this as both of your third reverts were very recent as I type this, and we should see how this goes. Yes, there's a 2-1 consensus in favor of Softlem's position, but that's from an editor's drive-by comment three weeks ago; they haven't otherwise participated in this very lively discussion. Since the article has been designated as being within a contentious topic, I think I would be within my rights to consider brief full protection on my own initiative, but I'm not going to go there yet as I think the best course of action for the two of you would be to get more editors involved and reach a stronger consensus (preferably through discussions on relevant noticeboards, not an RfC). Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be within my rights to consider brief full protection on my own initiative Support this and making the page 1RR like Julian Assange Softlem (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I requested temporary page protection Softlem (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi The four reverts by Softlemonades - the exact same set of code removed by Softlemonades in the "Previous version" diff they then remove again in the four recent edits - breach the 3RR rule, no? What am I missing? <i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 20:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The first diff you link to (the 13:17 one) does not appear to be a revert of another editor's recent preceding edit. It's the edit they were reverting to. The rule is more than three reverts, not more than three of the same edit. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a revert of, which restored the citations after Softlemonades first removed them in the edit above. <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> 22:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if this were a case of four reverts, having reviewed some of the citations that were removed, there does appear to be a WP:COPYLINKS/WP:COPYVIO here, so WP:3RRNO#5 would apply. For example, the citation to Egads! Confidential 9/11 Pager Messages Disclosed is undeniably a copyvio of the original article by CBS News. I haven't reviewed all of the links, and some of it gets pretty complicated because the copyright of confidential government materials gets pretty complex in some jurisdictions. But it is plausible that other leaks, like the Syria Files or Stratfor emails are copyrighted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The 3RR exception #5 is for, meaning use of copyrighted material in the article. There is no copyrighted material removed in Softlemonades edit-warred change. The exception is not for external links. There has been no copyrighted material put in the article, and no suggestion - except for an inaccurate claim from the edit warring user - that there is. <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> 11:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COPYVIO Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to. We are not permitted to link to material that knowingly violates copyright. We can no-more link to the WikiLeaks copy of Egads! than we can to a research paper on SciHub, a copy of a book on LibGen, or a copy of a movie, TV show, or video game on Pirate Bay. 3RRNO#5 covers removal of violating links in all of those situations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I made unrelated revert on the page. I realized it might be 3RR so I tried to self revert, but Cambial corrected first Softlem (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , the exception is about "clear copyright violations", similar to the other exceptions that are for really clear cases. In a situation where the copyright issue itself is under dispute, the situation isn't clear enough for the exception to apply. You have been edit warring, and you'll need to find a consensus about this issue instead. Neither you nor should be the person to assess or implement that consensus. I'm closing this as "warned/stale" as there have been no edits for two days, but if this continues, there will be page protections or blocks, and they won't be removed or avoided by 3RRNO#5. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:167.98.155.153 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked one month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 09:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

167.98.155.153 is a logged-out editor on a crusade against articles on villages having historical population figures. Similar behaviour can be seen in the article history of Mladkov.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:39-41, 23 March 2024‎ (UTC) reverted addition of population table and other improvements by FromCzech
 * 2) 16:07, 23 March 2024‎ (UTC) reverted FromCzech
 * 3) 15:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reverted FromCzech
 * 4) 16:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reverted Toddy1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Warning on user talk page by FromCzech Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 16:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, is it? Why be so transparently dishonest? 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments:


 * The reporting user appears to simply hate IP addresses. They have nothing to do with the article, have no apparent prior interest in it, have not made any attempt to discuss its content, nor even elucidated any actual objection to my edit. The situation was caused by one particular user ("FromCzech") who squats on all Czech town and village articles, reverting any edits they do not like and making false accusations of vandalism to boot. The reporting user evidently did not like my post seeking a consensus about the issues I was concerned with; their comments about "logged-out editor" reveal the motivation behind this bad-faith effort to get me blocked. 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note the hyperbolic attacks by the reporting user. "Crusade"? I edited two articles. The user "FromCzech" is on a crusade, to make all Czech town and village articles contravene style and content guidelines. They revert all edits they don't like and clearly believe that they WP:OWN the subject area. But their harmful reverting is fine by the reporting user, because it's IP addresses they have a problem with, not the undoing of edits. 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked 167.98.155.0/24 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:XeCyranium reported by User:LokiTheLiar (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 20:13 20 March 2024 21:45, 14 March 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (note: added afterwards at 04:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC), one below was the original #1) 19:36, 22 March 2024, reverting a clause highlighting American medical orgs in the lead
 * 2) 19:40, 22 March 2024, reverting a different clause in a different part of the article
 * 3) 17:52, 23 March 2024, reverting the same clause highlighting American medical orgs in the lead
 * 4) 01:29, 24 March 2024, reverting the same clause highlighting American medical orgs in the lead

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see edit summary here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This had actually already been discussed on the article talk page, and the user in question continued to remove it even after it was opposed there, which is why I'm coming here for a resolution instead of continuing to discuss.

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

Comments:

Even though this is only three reverts, not four, it is on a page for a contentious topic that's seen a lot of editing recently. (Also I should note: I also made three reverts in this time, but self-reverted the last one and came here when I realized it was the third revert.) Loki (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I feel I should point out I self-reverted the change to the lead as seen here: and started a talk page discussion regarding the change here: . Aside from that I was under the impression that reverts were measured over the course of a day, not over the course of three. I don't plan on reverting the article again, and as can be seen here:  I've been looking for sources for others to reinsert the content I removed in the first place. I realize that a series of reverts over several days can be seen as "gaming the system" to enforce my preferred view, but the only edit which I have repeatedly restored my own version of over multiple days is this one here:, an edit which I assumed correctly had been reverted by mistake, as I was told here: . My apologies if I'm replying in the wrong field. XeCyranium (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems like something that should be resolved with an RfC; XeCyranium reverted a recent WP:BOLD addition, and a minor edit war began over whether it should be included or not - all parties were in the wrong, but generally the editor who is editing against the status quo should be the one to initiate dispute resolution once talk page discussion hasn't lead to a clear conclusion. BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What WP:BOLD addition are you talking about? While the article text has definitely been contested recently, the stuff XeCyranium reverted has been in the article for a while, as far as I can tell. Here's the list of medical organizations as of the end of last year, for example, and you can also see that although the wording is slightly different there's still basically the same information about the Finnish Ministry starting with "Nevertheless" instead of "On the other hand".
 * I also realized that I'm missing a diff above and there actually were four diffs: the previous diff to the first one above is also a revert by XeCyranium, albeit to a different part of the article. Loki (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, now I do realize what you're talking about. While the changes to the lead are the main thing being reverted here they're not the only thing, and some of the things reverted in the process of this war were pretty long-standing. See above. Loki (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As noted above. Since discussion on the talk page has remained commendably civil and collegial, I concur with the suggestion above that an RfC might be the best move. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Cinosaur reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1215368889 by Soetermans (talk) Thank you for your suggested improvements of the lead. Could you please introduce them in the actual text of the lead rather than asking for it to be worked on in sandbox"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1215366126 by Ratnahastin (talk) Please present evidence on the Talk page that the reverted addition is indeed "fan-craft" before reverting it."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1215363830 by Ratnahastin (talk) Please refrain from reverting edits backed up by WP:RSs. Take to the Talk page and let's reach consensus there whether or not the update is improvement"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1215358752 by DaxServer (talk) Discuss on the Talkpage. These are statements by officials, backed up by WP:RS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Keeps pushing a 166 thousand characters addition. Three reverts already passed. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice, @Soetermans. My concern with your and Ratnahastin's reverts is that they were based on claims unsupported by reliable sources or Wp guidelines that 1) the subject is highly controversial, 2) the new addition was "fancruft", and that 3) the lead was not according to WP:LEAD. As for the single edit expansion, this is how in the past I improved two closely related articles on Bhaktisiddhanta (+44318 bytes) and Bhaktivinoda (+64138 bytes), both accepted at that time by the community as improvements of the articles' encyclopedic value. In this case, too, the proposed expansion was carefully written on the basis of most available scholarly resources and in strict accordance with Wikipedia policies. My humble request is, rather than rejecting it offhand and giving it short shrift, please deal with the proposed text in its face value and help improve it. Thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does it take a edit warring notice for you to stop edit warring? You've been here for quite some time and have thousands of edits to your name. Right now, there is clear consensus that what you are trying to add is not okay. Like I said on your talk page, I am not going to do you work you. Again, it is over 166 thousand of characters you added. That is huge. There is no WP:DEADLINE so just work on it on your sandbox. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It has already been worked on in the sandbox. The objections you raised about the lead and infobox neither complied with Manual of Style nor warranted revisions of the encyclopedic value the expansion added to the article. Please assume good faith and do not disrupt edits that actually improve content. Thanks, Cinosaur (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you still reverting? How is this not getting through to you? People disagree with your revision. Stop this immediately. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Araboud reported by User:ThaddeusSholto (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

There seems to be a page move war happening too. I moved it back to Dhurma Massacre (1818) as I think that was the original article name. Please revert if I am mistaken. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:62.73.123.23 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Blocked one week)
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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

Comments:

I have also tried to request a semi-protection of the article Sofia, but failed. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined)
Pages: See below

User being reported:

A few days ago, User:Graywalls started on a personal mission to attack a number of scouting related articles:


 * - Articles for deletion/White Stag Leadership Development Program
 * - unilaterally removing large swaths of content
 * - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page
 * - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
 * - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion
 * - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
 * - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
 * - unhelpful editing

Graywalls ignored the discussion started on this page, Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America, and moved the discussion to: Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.

It seems that whenever the discuss is not going their way they escalate the disagreement to another fourm. In the last day, this has happened:


 * American Heritage Girls - tagging the article with multiple tags
 * COPE (Boy Scouts of America) - Nominated for deletion
 * Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) - tagging the article with multiple tags
 * National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience - tagging the article with multiple tags
 * Philmont Training Center - tagging the article with multiple tags
 * Philmont Scout Ranch - tagging the article with multiple tags

Did I catch it all? I'm not sure I did, It's somewhat bewildering. On top of all that is Graywalls personal attacks against btphelps. You can find it here:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, here Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, and then there is this personal attack in the edit summary. I submitted the last item to the administrators to be removed.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I'd like something to be done to make this all stop an allow for a more civil way to deal with this. I myself am travelling right now, and don't have easy access to a computer, so I don't expect to be available again until next week. The following users may be able to help:

Thank you. --evrik (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Re: 'I'd like something to be done to make this all stop and allow for a more civil way to deal with this'...
 * Evidence that neither you nor I have seen has been provided behind closed doors about a possible COI. What could be more civil than simply to allow the investigation into that evidence to take its own course behind closed doors and to trust that due process will prevail one way or the other?
 * By comparison, starting up some kind of counter action here, based on the unproven assumption that the COI evidence was provided in bad faith, seems rather questionable. Axad12 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , as I'm sure you've noticed in other discussions at COI/N, there's a strict policy on Wikipedia about posting anything that would reveal user's personal information. So, posting any kind of evidence that would reveal their personal information that they have not already shared publicly is a serious violation. For example, posting link to social media is out of question, unless that person has publicly shared it on Wikipedia themselves. Graywalls (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood me. I was saying that evidence has quite correctly been provided through confidential channels and it is reasonable to assume that the evidence was given in good faith. Axad12 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Once I realized one user was inserting much of primary source website of a website they're associated with (whitestag.org) and what appears to be personal research (pinetreeweb) I removed them based on not being based on reliable sources. The ones I re-directed as I did not find it merited stand alone article, I put them threw AfD to seek consensus for re-direct. I believe that's a pretty typical procedure when re-direct is objected and a proper way to do so rather than repeatedly creating re-direct. What you are saying is "personal attack" is a quotation from the material found within the information page of the source I removed. I then captioned that it was inserted by a co-director of Whitestag, based on btphelps' self-disclosure at one point in their user page. Now, for anyone to extensively start inserting contents based on sources they're associated with and written within is a COI. I would say the same thing if a NY Times journalist was going around inserting articles they've written into numerous articles. The edit summary just explains the nature, it was not an "attack" on anybody. It was found that a swath of information was added by one editor into numerous articles citing sources they have a clear COI with and sources that are not exactly WP:RS. I removed those personal website/blog based contents as I locate them through insource: search for whitestag.org and Pinetreeweb. Graywalls (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This report does not belong here. It is not really about edit-warring, although some edit-warring (mostly stale as far as I can tell) has taken place. Consider WP:ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls has been on an "axe to grind" type quest and related rough treatment of editors. Also note that the possible-COI diversion does not even involve any of the articles in question. The edit warring being a concrete violation is a way to bring it up. I think that any possible help with the requested "I'd like something to be done to make this all stop an allow for a more civil way to deal with this." would be appreciated.....even if just some thoughts/recommendations/advice for Graywalls rather than opening something bigger at wP:ANI as noted. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The edit summary and personal attack by Graywalls which states' "His research was supported by Bela Banathy, the originator of the program and Joe St. Clair, one of White Stag's founders", whatever it's source, is not proof that either Bela Banathy nor Joe St Clair provided renumeration (NPE) to me of any kind. In fact, both were deceased at the time I wrote the article about Banathy. Graywalls must immediately cease and desist with this vendetta against me and my contributions. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Wt2024 reported by User:Tehonk (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

There's some pretty disruptive behavior on this AfD by the user like spamming keep votes, bludgeoning, adding user talk page templates to the AfD page and reverting everyone who removes it, personal attacks like "SOMEONE CAN'T COUNT" and others etc. since reverts reached four already, this looked like the best place to report.Tehonk (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:D291:4D0:90C8:C09B:56A1:9D58 reported by User:Classicwiki (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. The material has been repeatedly inserted despite being inaccurate. The information also contains links that are no longer active, adding to the inaccuracy of this section."
 * 2)  "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. The material has been repeatedly inserted despite being inaccurate."
 * 3)  "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced (including removed article from Kotaku) must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, please report the issue."
 * 4)  "Kotaku is a tabloid as it is owned by Gawker Media. The article has been taken down by Kotaku. The article is inaccurate and based on hearsay from an accusation made by Lawhead with no evidence. There was no investigation, charges or civil proceedings made against Soule. The other "multiple sources" are based on the Kotaku article that has since been taken down. The subject of this article is clearly being defamed by a repeat contributor and wikipedia should take serious note of this."
 * 5)  "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism (in this case Kotaku) Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject. Contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if libellous. The material has been repeatedly inserted, and the inserter MUST be reported"
 * 6)  "The original article accusing Soule has been taken by the original journalist with the following explanation - (https://web.archive.org/web/20200603181625/https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr4erf?new_posdown) Furthermore no investigation, charges or civili proceedings were made against Soule. This section is therefore in violation of a living person's biography and unnecessarily defaming the subject of this wiki article without a qualifying source."
 * 7)  "The company was not subjected to a class action lawsuit (see the footnote someone previous attached to this piece of information) and is therefor not accurate."
 * 8)  "The sexual misconduct accusations were taken down by the original blog kotaku (see that sources cited are archived, and not live), no evidence was presented and no charges were filed by the accuser. This section of this wikipedia article therefore is based purely on hearsay and not based on any factual evidence."
 * 1)  "The sexual misconduct accusations were taken down by the original blog kotaku (see that sources cited are archived, and not live), no evidence was presented and no charges were filed by the accuser. This section of this wikipedia article therefore is based purely on hearsay and not based on any factual evidence."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Jeremy Soule."

Comments:

3rr/edit warring. States issue is with a single media outlet, but there is other sourced reporting as pointed out by other user on talk page. Asked user to take it to the talk page of article. Continues to blank. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Reaper1945 reported by User:Buidhe (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks Both parties agreed to cease)
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

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

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

Comments: I made this report earlier today, but withdrew it when Reaper did engage on the talk page. Unfortunately, we have exhausted the discussion and Reaper has continued to add content that is not supported by consensus in violation of WP:ONUS. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Buidhe claims all of the sources provided are WP:FRINGE, including work by Boris Sokolov, Viktor Zemskov, and Peter Calvocoressi, all three as respected historians, and whose works are cited on other pages of Wikipedia, yet when it comes to a somehow contenious topic of Soviet POWs death toll, they are unreliable. Reaper1945 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to rehash content arguments, but I'm increasingly worried that Reaper's insistence that being cited on Wikipedia is an indication of reliability is becoming disruptive. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Buidhe continued to change the page despite the discussion still ongoing, and when I kept on stating that the input of others would be needed, they go ahead and change the page again and disregard all sources or other input. Reaper1945 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've stated repeatedly, per the ONUS policy, it's your responsibility to obtain consensus before adding content you know is disputed.
 * Because there is a lot of back and forth regarding several different sources, now I'm worried it will be more difficult to engage outside editors. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The page had been left alone for a week, with no further additions between 19 March to 26 March, and you did not respond to my comments until after you made the edits a week later, which is confusing and does not help the dispute. Furthermore, citing those above and scholars such as Adam Jones or Daniel Goldhagen as unreliable without explaining why is contentious, beyond the apparent citation count argument. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a partial block from the article. you both have been edit warring for months on this article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean by "edit warring for months" so I can avoid it in the future? As you can see from the edit history, I made only one edit to the article between 4 January 2024‎ and 19 March 2024‎. I see there was a brief dispute between Reaper and myself in August 2023 (which I did not remember) but it looks like we resolved it without edit warring. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not remember any prior incidents on the page besides the current one with Buidhe which has now involved others to help achieve a resolution to the dispute, giving the examples to both of us would better to help understand what wrong was done. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are both correct and I will edit my language. You both edited back and forth back in August 2023. I saw the current edit was as an extension of that time. The content edited in August was partially related to the current dispute (total casualties). I did not see any 3RR violations, however. My intent with the partial block (as opposed to a site block or page protection) is to give you both time to work on the talk page about seek outside opinions.
 * If you both agree to a moratorium in editing until this is resolved, I'll revert my blocks.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree to a moratorium. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree as well to a moratorium. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I'll unblock  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:149.62.207.134 reported by User:Personhumanperson (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

User:MateuszCOMPANY reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1215905618 by Ybsone (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1215905539 by Ybsone (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1215905103 by Ybsone (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1215905036 by Ybsone (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1215905000 by Ybsone (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1215904945 by Ybsone (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1215904551 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1215900875 by Ybsone (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1215891527 by Ybsone (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1215785242 by Mr.choppers (talk)"
 * 11)  "Restore Dongfanghong corrections"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1215785242 by Mr.choppers (talk)"
 * 2)  "Restore Dongfanghong corrections"
 * 1)  "Restore Dongfanghong corrections"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Far too many photos */ Reply"

Comments:

It seems that this user is edit warring on FSO Polonez Untamed1910 (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Peter L Griffin reported by User:Beccaynr (Result: Page fully protected for 72 hours, placed under 1RR as a WP:CTOP action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 0:34, 28 March 2024 (and similar unsupported versions, contrary to sources and WP:BDP, and while discussion is underway on the article talk page) (I also just noticed that this was the second removal of the reliably-sourced content in the Also section below)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Also:
 * 0:34, 28 March 2024 "There is not consensus to remove it. Get consensus first, then remove. Follow the rules." (this is not what the source or WP:BLPUNDEL states)
 * 1)  00:11, 28 March 2024  "explaining what the notes said in lead" (this is not what the source states) This is developing news and reports are continuing to update; the quote from the Oklahoma medical examiners report is "Handwritten notes that are suggestive of self- harm were found in the decedent’s room by family and provided to law enforcement" e.g. ; it appears the source used as a reference in the article has updated since being added and needs to be replaced; overstatement of the finding and POV by saying more than the primary source says appears to be a BDP issue.
 * 19:57, 27 March 2024 "adding back relevant information to lead" (this is not what the source states)
 * 00:24, 28 March 2024 removal of reliably-sourced information I had added about the family's dispute with the Oklahoma medical examiner suicide finding, and also quoted  and referenced in several places on the article talk page; Peter L Griffin's edit summary states "moving sentence to appropriate subsection and making it factual" - they also moved content away from the chronological section it is sourced to. Before the removal and move, I had updated my !vote in the discussion about a proposed move to reflect the article update, and mentioned the update in an article talk discussion with Peter L Griffin.
 * 00:27, 28 March 2024 "undue to mention that family released a statement and not elaborate more." (elaboration was removed in the previous diff by Peter L Griffin, and moved out of chronological order, despite the emphasis on chronology by sources; I had recently added this content to the lead and was assessing the new developing sources for weight and considering how to summarize in a neutral and due manner)
 * 01:00, 28 March 2024‎ Peter L Griffin opened a requested move discussion, stating the family does not dispute the finding - Peter L Griffin seeks to change the article title to "Suicide of Nex Benedict." This has been discussed at the article talk page in previous sections: Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict and Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict I raised a BLP/BDP objection at 22:43, 27 March 2024; see also Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict, e.g. my 00:23, 28 March 2024 comment discussing the challenges related to rapidly developing the lead with breaking news, lead development generally, and a reminder of the 3 CTOPs that apply to this article.

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

Comments:

I have not covered myself in glory as I have tried to rapidly and carefully respond to breaking news and contentious content in an article covered by 3 CTOPs being rapidly added (and removed). I was previously referred to as "obtuse" by Peter L Griffin, and I am now exhausted by trying to keep up with the developing news, and what I think are changes happening to the article that do not seem supported by sources, BDP and NPOV policy. Beccaynr (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As further context, Page statistics indicate that I have added approximately 52.8% of the article text; I mention this to indicate my familiarity with the sources. Also, Peter L Griffin was alerted to the 3 applicable CTOPs on 17 March 2024 (in two edits, due to an initial typo). And I discussed WP:BLPUNDEL at Peter L Griffin's user talk at 20:31, 27 March 2024 . Beccaynr (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that when multiple edits are performed by one editor uninterrupted, that we tend to count it as 1 edit towards the WP:3RR (let's call one or more consecutive edits by the same user a "chunk"). Looking at edits by respondent in the page history, I'm seeing:
 * a first chunk ending at 19:27, 27 March 2024
 * a second chunk ending at 19:58, 27 March 2024
 * a third chunk at 20:12, 27 March 2024
 * a fourth chunk ending at 00:27, 28 March 2024
 * a fifth chunk ending at 00:40, 28 March 2024
 * The second, third, fourth, and fifth chunk are each clearly (partial) reverts in some way; the second restores a reference to self-harm in the lead that had been removed here, the third restores reference to a drug overdose in the lead that had been removed here, the fourth restores a reference to self-harm in the lead that had been removed here, and the fifth restores the same reference to self-harm in the lead. As such, respondent is over the 3RR.
 * Now looking at the same lens through edits by complainant, I'm seeing:
 * One chunk that ends at 19:53, 27 March 2024;
 * a second chunk that ends at 20:07, 27 March 2024;
 * a third chunk that ends at 20:46, 27 March 2024;
 * a fourth chunk that ends at 23:58, 27 March 2024
 * a fifth chunk at 00:33, 28 March 2024
 * a sixth chunk that ends at at 03:34, 28 March 2024
 * The sixth chunk doesn't look like a revert. Basically every other chunk (with perhaps the exception of the second one), however, does: the first chunk removed content that had been added to the lead here, the second chunk removed reference to a drug overdose from the lead that had been added here, the third chunk again removed reference to a drug overdose, and both the fourth and fifth chunk remove reference to self-harm from the lead that had been added here and here by respondent.
 * In the end, I could either block both complainant and respondent for edit warring with each other, or I could fully protect the page for a short amount of time to allow some discussion on the talk page to sort this out (ECP won't work here because the edit warring involves an XC editor). I don't feel at the moment that blocking both parties is the best way forward, and I think talk page discussion is going to be needed anyway to resolve the underlying content dispute anyway, so I'm just going to fully protect the page for 72 hours as a CTOP action. To deter future edit warring and encourage talk page discussion going forward, I will also be placing the page under a 1RR as a CTOP restriction. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Remember to use W-Ping or something to go back and reimpose the existing indef ECP when this expires. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

User:DonFB reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

4RR over a little more than 1 day in order to remove the term 'tachymetric' (tachometric is also a synonym here) and the link explaining it. This is a complex article, a complex term, and the tachymetric feature was novel and innovative for this generation of bombsights. It's crucial to the article, to the level that absolutely deserves to be in the lede. Their explanation, "Inclusion of "tachometric" offers not insight but confusion for the ordinary reader, who is unlikely to know the term and will simply waste their time following the link. " makes no sense: we do use complex terms, even jargon terms, and the way we make them accessible is to link them like this.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Andy Dingley (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * Now they've finally started trying to justify this: Talk:Norden_bombsight Andy Dingley (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see one edit that was reverted to three times in the next 24 hours. Not four reverts. And do keep discussing it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Saqib (talk) to last revision by BattyBot"
 * 2)  "Reverted edit by Saqib (talk) to last version by Faizanalivarya"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Abdul Qadir Patel."
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Abdul Qadir Patel."

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

Comments:

This user, despite their experience, continues to add unreliable references to a BLP, indicating a potential COI. When I raised concerns on the BLPs talk page and requested them to avoid such additions and declare any COI, they didn't respond. Furthermore, they repeatedly deleted unreliable source tags, which seems like engaging in edit warring. Given the topic is WP:CTOP, I believe a clear warning is warranted, if not a block. — Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 09:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , would you mind explaining your apparent misuse of the rollback permission at Special:Diff/1215741720 and your apparently unexplained, at least edit-summary-lacking revert at Special:Diff/1215816780? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (I'm not much impressed by, which just raises more questions such as "which policy defines the addition of Unreliable sources as vandalism?".) &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well. It appears they perceives himself as the owner of this BLP. Interestingly, he is the same individual who created the BLP and is its major contributor, as evident from the BLP's history. Concerns regarding references have been raised since 2012 but remain unresolved. --— Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 09:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am writing the reply, please read my reply @Saqib has given totally wrong statement about the article, this article belong to public office holder and I keep my all articles very clean with valid citations, @Saqib did not helped to improve rather just complained he did not comply with the policy of warning you may check he just added the citation needed and did not wait for my reply, as we all here working as volunteer to improve the Wikipedia clean thus you as administrator should listen to my opinion as well I also left a message on his talk page he did not respond, lets work together to make the Wikipedia better place to work. If you see his all articles and contributions, every user should be respect equally, its very sad to see you didnt even listen to my opinon and you may view the article each edit has been provided with proper citation and edit summary. I hope you see the edit history you will understand that he didnt improve or wait just reported. Faizan Munawar Varyachat<sub   style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> contributions 09:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, accept my honest apologies, you are correct its not, it was an error,
 * I have undid and providing correct sources and improving article the after that i will update article as per policies. Thanks
 * however Mr @Saqib has been unreasonable to many things, as recently I declarer to self deletion of an article and he is being very disrespectful and answer to previous thread is that I think every contributor should take a responsibility or article which they are creating and am I wrong? as contributors its our responsibility to provide valid citations and make keep improving the articles so it can help people as much as possible.
 * And the way of Mr @Saqib is very authoritative we should be working as team, I agree I should not remove the citation need template I did not remove without providing edit summary.
 * He declared an article for delectation without putting any citation needed tag or improvement require, it clearly shows he has some issue with me which I really do not understand he gave a reference of 2012 I dont even know what edit he is referring, meaning he has been having this negativity against my edits since 2012 its very sad to hear.
 * Now please lets conclude this topic as we all know our time is very previous and we are here to edit main articles, to do the justice you may see @Saqib has been much active on talk pages instead of doing a constructive work on main pages. Faizan Munawar Varyachat<sub   style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> contributions 10:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just found out that has created some questionable BLPs as well. For example Articles for deletion/Annelise Coste and Articles for deletion/Ovais Mangalwala. And their justification doesn't make sense to me. I'm unsure how they obtained autopatrolled or pending changes review rights. --— Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 10:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, its very disrespectful sir you are being very very unreasonable as per policy an author can declarer an article for self deletion and you are lying to administrator Ovais Mangalwala is very well respect and quite notable journalist form Pakistan as you are also from Pakistan you know very well. Faizan Munawar Varyachat<sub  style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> contributions 10:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Personal attacking WP:NPA is really not good thing to do, you allege me for creating paid articles on deletion request, its really not good to put a blame on someone without proper evidence. Please do not do this with any other contributor every person is important here in Wikipedia and we contribute our time to improve this place and such comments from fellow Wikipedia is really not appreciated, quite sad to hear. Lets respect each other and lets work to improve Wikipedia WP:Pakistan project together, if you have any personal grudge against me please remove it I am very peaceful person.
 * Faizan Munawar Varyachat<sub  style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> contributions 11:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of your existence until today, so your comments don't make sense to me. Regardless, since you're persistently adding original research and puffery material, I've re-added the tags. Please refrain from removing them. --— Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 13:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * . This is not really about edit-warring but about general problems with Faizanalivarya. I strongly recommend that Saqib take this to WP:ANI. Having looked at Faizanalivarya's comments in various places and glanced at the articles he's created (although the ones I looked at were created many years ago), I struggle to understand how he's gotten this far without any sanctions. His userpage is an advertisement for himself. The articles he's created are a combination of poor English and peacock language, although, AFAICT, the subjects are notable. His attacks on Saqib are unacceptable, not to mention his weird idea that just because two editors are from the same country, they should work as a team. I agree with about the rollback privilege. Indeed, I don't think Faizanalivarya should have any advanced privileges.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever interacting with this user before today, so I'm not sure why they're suggesting I'm personally attacking them or holding a grudge. It sounds very strange, and they seem to be trying to play the victim. and well the last time I went to ANI, they questioned why I reported it, so I'm hesitant about going to ANI again. Could you perhaps take it there? I'm also concerned about this user, especially since they have autopatrolled and pending changes review rights. --— Saqib  ( talk  |  contribs ) 13:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing requires you to go to ANI, but it won't be handled here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe we can consider this matter closed for now. If 's behavior persists, I may escalate it to ANI. --— Saqib ( talk  |  contribs ) 14:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

User:149.62.206.185 reported by User:LuckyLouie (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Wrong content"
 * 2)  "Wrong content"
 * 3)  "The content was wrong"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Section blanking on this scale without any attempt to provide a legitimate rationale is generally considered vandalism. If I'd seen this first I'd have reported it to WP:AIV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep my mistake. But it seems to have gotten them to stop blanking. &#45; LuckyLouie (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Southdevonian User:Srbernadette reported by User:RudolfRed (Result: Srbernadette blocked for two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

This is the first edit by Srbernadette:

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

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

Comments:


 * My first report here. I am not involved with any edits on the page in question.  I only provided a diff to the first edit, because almost every edit after that is part of the edit war.  A look at the article's history will show these two users edit warring by continually going back and forth with additions and reverts. RudolfRed (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am placing the notices now and will update with diffs RudolfRed (talk) 05:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Done RudolfRed (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Both users were cautioned before about this, but it continued:
 * 
 * 

RudolfRed (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a attempt by me and User:DeFacto to keep Omid Scobie in line with BLP and free from tabloid trivia. The original story was not just tabloid trivia (Daily Mail - deprecated source) but also inaccurate. Please look at the discussion on
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * My last revert was actually removing my own text  (inserted by me, removed by User:DeFacto, re-inserted by User:Srbernadette, removed by me following discussion with User:DeFacto on the Talk page.
 * Background is here . Southdevonian (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * PS - the material was originally inserted by an IP address and re-inserted by a second IP address. It was only after the page had been semi-protected that User:Srbernadette appeared. I suspect that User:Srbernadette and the IP addresses are linked. I requested a sockpuppet investigation


 * I blocked Srbernadette for two weeks at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Southdevonian (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have further extended the block to for three months and, since no one has expressed any objections or any comment at all really since I brought it up at the SPI, I will be revoking Sbernardette's extended-confirmed right due to a clear abuse of community trust demonstrated by this chronic and sustained use of IPs. Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:TheLionHasSeen reported by User:Logosx127 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

 Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: I am reporting TheLionHasSeen following a series of content dispute at Oriental Orthodox churches. The user is repeatedly removing sourced content and I have attempted multiple times to understand the rationale behind the content removal. Despite my efforts to resolve the dispute and the administrator intervention by @User:Gyrofrog here, the user is hesitant to respond at the article talk and to engage in the dispute resolution. Instead they have resorted to put baseless allegations against me at ANI. Meanwhile they are continuing to disregard the talk page and to remove sourced content disregarding other users' opinion at talk page.

Logosx127 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is already being discussed at ANI. There's no need to open a report here while that one is ongoing. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Both are different issues. One related to Eastern Catholic Churches, and there is no edit war going on over there. I believe this has to be discussed separately.Logosx127 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks a little convenient that this report was filed after the AN/I was opened. But that's moot when they are four reverts of the same edit in 16 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Zeblade12 reported by User:Skitash (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:01, 28 March 2024
 * 2) 16:04, 28 March 2024
 * 3) 16:18, 28 March 2024
 * 4) 16:24, 28 March 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Removed by the user ; they have been warned for edit warring previously but removed that warning as well)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Zeblade12

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

Comments:

I'm highly certain that this is just another highly disruptive meatpuppet (along with H0x7c00 and multiple other recently created accounts such as Rumihoney, SaraWiki123, AmazighAcademic and Elyelm). This account had been created very recently with a single disruptive purpose: to edit war against multiple editors and use Wikipedia as an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND. Despite multiple violations of WP:NOR and refusal to engage in the ongoing discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco, the user continues to mass revert edits. As per WP:SILENCE, 's edit on Tangier has achieved presumed consensus and should not be reverted during the discussion per WP:STATUSQUO. The user has been issued numerous warnings, but they choose to delete them each time. Skitash (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "you can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." Your (and Snowstormfigorion) modifications only stand there for 17 days before an user added back the script you deleted while the script were there for years before your modifications. I'm new to this platform so I don't know every code or rules that applied here but I started with a question on your talk page and you deleted it. Then, upon an advice made by an admin, I posted a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco (the discussion you are talking about) where you refused again to talk with me. Later on, I tried to talk with you on your page and you deleted my message again. I'm no "disruptive meatpuppet", I'm a regular person that is having a disagreement with you, that's just it. Zeblade12 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You can not pretend to not know the rules for being "new to this platform" when you've clearly read my edit summaries cautioning against edit warring and have deliberately removed my several warnings from your talk page. The matter at hand is currently being discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco, but you appear to be bypassing this conversation and resorting to edit warring instead. You have been made well aware of WP:STATUSQUO, which stipulates that one must not revert away from the status quo amid a dispute discussion. The queries you raised on my talk page seemed more like personal attacks than genuine questions. Firstly, you falsely accused me of violating WP:NOR then proceeded to flood my talk page with the same message accusing me of "erasing" Berber-language names, all while disregarding my edit summaries and the ongoing discussion on your talk page (which seems to be in violation of WP:HARASS). Skitash (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is "Why are you so keen to erase the Amazigh names of Moroccan cities on their pages ? Is this based on any wikipedia rules that I'm not aware of or something else ?" a personal attack ? And am I wrong for asking for explanations ? You just kept sending links to various rules without telling why they applied where you used them. I do recognize that I was irritated at first. That's when the admin you tagged first intervened. Then I asked a question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco and you didn't answer. You only started talking once another user (R Prazeres, an admin ? I don't know) stepped in. Am I that undeserving of an answer from you ? That's why I started talking via the edit summaries, so you can't just delete my messages and ignore them.
 * For that WP:NOR thing, you deleted the Tifinagh names of Agadir, Tiznit and various other cities when their names in Tifinagh was clearly shown and available on these cities official websites. Perphaps the reason I used are wrong, but still, the script you deemed "unsourced" are clearly sourced on the internet. (just take a look on the cities logo at agadir.ma, tiznit.ma or even https://tanger.ma) Zeblade12 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bombarding my talk page with unfounded aspersions can indeed be categorized as harassment and constitutes a personal attack. Even more so when viewed in conjunction with your edit summaries and remarks, i.e. accusing me of "erasing native culture" both here and in your edit summaries across various articles, accusing me of not knowing anything about the subject, accusing me of "arabising" towns, suggesting that I have "a serious lack of knowledge" and trying to perform a "deliberate attack on one of Amazigh langage's weakness" and accusing me of trying to pursue an agenda, which are all severe violations of WP:NPA. It's bizarre of you to spam my talk page while pretending to not understand the reasoning behind my edits despite my clear references to two Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NOR and MOS:FORLANG). Keep in mind that there are other editors who share my perspective and have expressed concerns about this particular issue. Moreover, the website you linked here does not even substantiate your claim. It's entirely in Arabic, and the language switcher doesn't even feature Berber as an option, only Arabic, English, French and Spanish. Skitash (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, I was irritated because the issue that is being discussed is very sensitive. As much this platform wants their users to keep everything as "formal" and "polite" as possible, things like this do happen. I am sorry if this has troubled you so much but that is just how anyone reacts when they see something that they perceive as being unjust and are not correctly equipped to deal with. And for the website I linked, it does contain the name of Tangiers written down in Tifinagh, just scroll down a bit and you'll see the logo with the officially endorsed Tifinagh transliteration of the name "Tangier". And may I also add that if it was entirely written in say Tifinagh, you would have just said that it is not "easily verifiable" by a normal user as Snowstormfigorionpointed out on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco. Zeblade12 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * https://tanger.ma/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WhatsApp-Image-2023-06-02-at-9.34.58-AM-2.jpeg
 * here's the image I'm referring to that is available on this page https://tanger.ma Zeblade12 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

as NOTHERE: "I am sorry if this has troubled you so much but that is just how anyone reacts when they see something that they perceive as being unjust and are not correctly equipped to deal with." Yes, tell me you're a single-purpose battleground-mentality meatpuppet without actually saying it out loud ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Ravensfire reported by User:Sak7340 (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Aside from the incomplete report, this is clear retaliation for the above report. I'm at three reverts of the POV and woefully undersourced edits from this editor.  The talk page discussion isn't generating any consensus so now they're grasping at straws.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Sak7340 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:00-04, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (not a revert)
 * 2) 12:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reverted Toddy1
 * 3) 12:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reverted Toddy1
 * 4) 12:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reverted Ravensfire
 * 5) 12:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reverted Ravensfire
 * 6) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reverted Ravensfire
 * 7) 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reverted DaxServer
 * 8) 14:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reverted DaxServer
 * 9) 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reverted DaxServer

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mohammed Zubair (journalist)

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

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (updated 13:10 and 14:05 and 14:29) and 18:02

Page:

User being reported:

Sak7340 also made a OpIndia-POV edit to the article on Safoora Zargar, 11:56-57, 29 March 2024‎ (UTC) which was reverted, so he/she is now editing logged out to revert back to his/her version 13:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts: -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) 11:56-57, 29 March 2024‎ (UTC) initial POV edit by Sak7340
 * 2) 13:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC) editing logged-out reverted Toddy1
 * 3) 14:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) editing logged-out reverted Aafi
 * 4) 14:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC) editing logged-out reverted Ravensfire
 * 5) 14:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) editing logged-out reverted Ravensfire

Comments:


 * Sak7340 is participating in the discussion on the article talk page, but with questionable arguments lacking support in Wikipedia policy and lacking sources. They have continued to revert to their version, with another revert at 12:56.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also a serious breach of WP:BLP — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 14:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Justanothersgwikieditor reported by User:Unknown152438 (Result: Stale)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:   

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has been making disruptive and aggressive edits on both of these pages.(Unknown152438 (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC))


 * Hi, when I removed this from WP:AIV, I had hoped for discussion instead of another report. However, this noticeboard here is indeed more suitable for discussing the behavior for a moment, so it's okay.
 * and, the last discussion at Talk:Star Awards 2023 is from 11 months ago; the last discussion at Talk:Star Awards 2019 is non-existent. Is there a reason why none has been used yet? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, everyone is in agreement with the template used in Star Awards 2019, which has been established without the need for discussion and has remained in place for years until recent changes. However, has expressed concerns regarding the template for Star Awards 2024, noting that it lacks consistency with previous templates and has resulted in a cluttered appearance. (Unknown152438 (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
 * , I can't find that agreement at Talk:Star Awards 2019. Was it formally reached somewhere else? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The template for "Top 10 Most Popular Artistes" has been consistently utilized since the previous events, namely 2017 and 2018. I am confident that these templates already uphold a standard of consistency. (Unknown152438 (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
 * No,, other Wikipedia articles are usually not a suitable justification. If there was a central discussion somewhere, that could be helpful, but even Talk:Star_Awards_2017 and Talk:Star_Awards_2018 are empty. There's nothing so far that could be described as "everyone is in agreement". Please start a discussion. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We previously discussed this matter via Talk:Star Awards 2024, but no agreement was reached with this user. I had informed about the recent changes to the template. However, I noticed alterations made to Star Awards 2023 and Star Awards 2019 without any prior discussion or approval.(Unknown152438 (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
 * The newly created template was intended for use starting from Star Awards 2024. However, I propose reverting back to the previous template used in Star Awards 2023, as it was not created by this user. (Unknown152438 (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
 * Meanwhile, I have received the user's suggestions, but there has been no response to my comments regarding my perspective. Furthermore, changes have been implemented on these two pages without any prior discussion or notification. (Unknown152438 (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
 * The user's template suggestion is just bidding for the current year's template and has not garnered approval or intention to be used with the format from previous years. (Unknown152438 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
 * @ToBeFree, I took the time to thoroughly examine the paragraph written by @Justanothersgwikieditor. It appears that the user has discerned a sense of culpability, evident in their assertion, "I believe we can close this report as it is now." This suggests a nuanced assessment of the situation and a readiness to bring the matter to a resolution. (Unknown152438 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
 * , if I understand correctly, you believe that:
 * the report can be closed if admits fault, as 's edits have been the only problem in this edit war, and
 * Special:Diff/1215808191 and Special:Diff/1215651447 are justified by previous attempts to discuss the issue?
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree I believe WP:CIR is applicable here when Unknown152438 seems to fail to comprehend 1) what constitutes a revert 2) what this board is trying to address (like what Unknown152438 failed to understand what AIV is for) and we have not reached this stage (2R for me but 3R for Unknown152438) yet. &#126; JASWE (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All I'm currently looking for is a clarification if the two points above are 's opinion. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree,
 * Initially, I don't see the necessity of compelling @Justanothersgwikieditor to acknowledge fault in the template, as it seems unprofessional.
 * Additionally, while everyone has the right to revert changes, the manner in which @Justanothersgwikieditor acted disagreement with the template. I hope @Justanothersgwikieditor to prioritize discussion and collaboration before finalizing their work or designs to avoid editing warring.(Unknown152438 (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC))
 * @ToBeFree
 * It's worth noting that @Justanothersgwikieditor failed to mention the template changes, unlike what I did on the current Star Awards pages when adjustments were necessary. This oversight seems somewhat absurd and disrespectful to the creators of the articles. (Unknown152438 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC))
 * @ToBeFree
 * Failed to mention changes as in the talk page, this is a major refurbishment and this is not a minor minor changes. (Unknown152438 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC))
 * @ToBeFree
 * In the meantime, I would appreciate your suggestions on which designs you find more appropriate, allowing us to decide on the design for the upcoming ceremony.(Unknown152438 (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC))
 * Hm.
 * I'll continue having a look at this instead of closing yet, to see if the edit warring has actually stopped. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree As said, 3RR has not been violated by me. If Unknown152438 started the first revert of my changes, mathematically and logically, I cannot be the one who violated 3RR. It can be easily seen that I have not edited in the past 24 hrs or more. This report should be procedurally closed. &#126; JASWE (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree
 * I will attempt to re-edit once more to see whether @Justanothersgwikieditor has any "SAME" moves repeatedly or not. (Unknown152438 (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC))
 * @ToBeFree, I am rather busy during this period IRL and I am not able to be on Wikipedia proper till the next Monday. Note I am on GMT+8 timeline. Unknown152438 reported me here for edit warring but I have not exceeded the 3RR, I had only reverted twice and edited subsequently based on Wikipedia's policies and he had reverted three times. The only two reverts by me are with edit summary of Revert to last good version, editor claims any of his suggested template to be applied from 2024 version onwards.. also reverting for accessibility issues (if you see the prior version at, the tables at the section Popularity Awards has colours and markup which I believe violates accessibility guidelines, I do not even know there are wiki links in the names.... ) and the second revert by me at  with edit summary revert due to accessibility access. Also, i asked you replied, now flipping say it might not be. Be consistent.. How is this edit claimed by Unknown152438 a revert? Based on 3RR and this noticeboard's requirement, I believe we can close this report as it is now.


 * For Star Awards 2023, as I have per my edit summaries, I have reverted due to accessibility issues that any reader will not know there is a wiki link to the artiste's wiki articles.


 * A history of past interaction with Unknown152438 can be seen on various talkpages with the most documented at Talk:Star Awards. At Talk:Star Awards 2024, I asked Unknown152438 if the template he proposed will be applicable to all previous Star Awards also or just going from this year onwards? which he answered It will be applicable this year onwards. I did not reply as I personally do not agree nor come to a consensus with the design choices. If you read both the talkpages at Talk:Star Awards and Talk:Star Awards 2024 and his edit summaries for Star Awards 2023, it is rather clear that Unknown152438 has WP:OWN issues and threaten to report me for vandalism Have you even get permission to change the template of Star Awards 2023? Or this is only your own preferences? If you are agree with the changes you shall not change it back again, if you are talking about consistency, please have a look with previously done Star Awards, all with colors. If this happened again you will be awarded vandalism..


 * I believe WP:BOOMERANG might apply here. &#126; JASWE (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * However, I previously mentioned that @Justanothersgwikieditor disagreed with the changes. I observed significant alterations from the user that I personally consider should be undone. (I refrained from replying as I neither agreed with nor reached a consensus on the design choices.) @Justanothersgwikieditor, have you reached a conclusion regarding your personal preferences for change? Why should I report you when you have the right to inquire about the applicability of your template to previous years' versions? I'm not concerned about any threats as opinions about the appearance of the Star Awards template will naturally vary. Therefore, I would prefer to invite @Sculture65 in a more thorough discussion regarding the designs. (Unknown152438 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
 * @ToBeFree @Justanothersgwikieditor, currently, my focus is on removing the evident clutter from the template we've created, rather than addressing accessibility concerns and colors. Upon examination, I've noticed that the Top 10 Most Popular Artistes template uses color indicators similar to previous years, which I believe should maintain consistency. Addressing accessibility issues will be prioritized in this year's template, as it may require time to link each and every artistes to their respective pages. (Unknown152438 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC))
 * Stale. There haven't been any edits to the article in a few days. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:DaxServer reported by User:Sak7340 (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

He is unnecessary editing the page of Muhammad Zubair. I attached proper citations even after that he is removing this. Sak7340 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:3RRNO — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed this report to show the name of the article in dispute correctly. It should have been Mohammed Zubair (journalist). EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

IP editor 2603:8000:2A00:3EE6:0:0:0:0/64 reported by Pbritti (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported: 2603:8000:2A00:3EE6:0:0:0:0/64

Diffs: Myeongdong Cathedral
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Our Lady of Consolation
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of warnings/prior blocks for EW:
 * Most recent warning for EW I've given: 04:45, 25 March 2024‎ UTC
 * Another example: 18:07, 24 March 2024‎ UTC
 * Previous block: 14:49, 11 January 2024 UTC (24 hours for edit warring)

Request for discussion: Talk:Myeongdong Cathedral

Notification of report:

Comments: This editor has engaged in repeated, prolonged edit warring campaigns across over a dozen articles, mostly related to Catholicism. They have yet to provide explanations for almost all of their edits (with some exceptions to use all-caps to shout at other editors who have asked them to explain what they're doing). They revert multiple editors on many pages, even when these other editors have all expressed dismay at the IP's edits due to the IP's lack of sourcing and often POVed character. The prolonged nature of the edit warring and the exclusive use of this range by such an editor leads me to believe that a six-month block to the whole range would be acceptable. Courtesy ping to, who has also experienced this editor's repeated edit warring over several months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please also note that 23.242.20.54 appears to be an IPv4 address also used by this editor, considering almost exclusive overlap. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * These messages from the IP via edit summary suggest WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV issues as well:
 * &mdash; Archer1234  (t·c) 21:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that set. That's all a bit unkind. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . hasn't been active recently, but if it or any other editors resume the edit warring, please report it here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Archer1234  (t·c) 21:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that set. That's all a bit unkind. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . hasn't been active recently, but if it or any other editors resume the edit warring, please report it here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Archer1234  (t·c) 21:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that set. That's all a bit unkind. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . hasn't been active recently, but if it or any other editors resume the edit warring, please report it here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I missed that set. That's all a bit unkind. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . hasn't been active recently, but if it or any other editors resume the edit warring, please report it here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Betty_Logan reported by MiztuhX (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 12:38, 29 March 2024‎ 12:48, 29 March 2024‎ 16:15, 29 March 2024‎ 16:21, 29 March 2024‎

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: Betty_Logan had already made two reverts - at 12:38, 29 March 2024‎ and 12:48, 29 March 2024‎ - before I posted a reply on his/her/their talk page.

I posted a first reply at: 15:20, 29 March 2024 and then I posted a second reply at: 16:09, 29 March 2024.

In my posts, I sought negotiation and conciliation. I also offered solutions. I tried to reach a consensus with him/her/them. I also suggested that he/she/they should revert their edit.

My attempts at mediation were ignored, as Betty_Logan made two more reverts of my edits, arbitrarily deleting and moving text around in the article according to his/her/their whims, and not addressing the questions and comments regarding the content I had added eighteen days ago.

He/she/they made no attempt to discuss improvements to the article in a collaborative manner; instead, he/she/they made arbitrary decisions according to his/her/their criteria.

Then, he/she/they had the audacity to tell me to that if I wanted to discuss the content of the article to initiate a discussion on the article talk page after he/she/they had already made reverts to the article. Please note that his/her/their talk page is filled with discussions with other editors about edits he/she/they have done; for some unknown reason, he/she/they did not feel it was relevant to discuss anything with me. Besides, at the initial phase, if he/she/they were planning on reverting my edits, he/she/they had a responsibility, especially as a Senior Editor, to discuss the reverts on the article talk page before making the reverts.

Due to Betty_Logan having violated WP:4RR within a 24-hour period, I demand that his/her/their account be blocked, especially in light of the fact that he/she/they have been designated as a Senior Editor who should be thoroughly knowledgeable about Wikipedia's rules at this stage; but for some unknown reason, he/she/they decided to ignore them in this instance, which brings up questions of credibility and honorability that reflect poorly on the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia as a whole. MiztuhX (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:2A01:E0A:CCB:4390:D855:F33B:72C3:9D52 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Anastasia Horne"
 * 2)  "Anastasia Nicole Horne"
 * 3)  "Anastasia Horne"
 * 4)  "Anastasia Nicole "Ana" Horne"
 * 5)  "Anastasia Horne"
 * 6)  "Anastasia Nicole "Ana" Horne"
 * 7)  "Anastasia Nicole "Ana" Horne"
 * 1)  "Anastasia Nicole "Ana" Horne"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Anastasia Horne (HG) (3.4.12)"
 * 2)   "Level 2 warning re. Anastasia Horne (HG) (3.4.12)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * The entire /64 range may need to be looked at here. Relevant edits are not just from this single IP. Jalen Folf   (Bark[s])  22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Sira Aspera and User:Rubyaho reported by User:Amortias (Result: SA blocked 24h, Rubayho indeffed)
Page:

User being reported: ;

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)

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:

was blocked by myself after this per WP:NPA. If its beneficial I don't object to them being unblocked to discuss here. I've seen there additional NPA on their usertalk but have taken no further action. appears to be well aware enough to cite policy on no original research so believe they should also be aware of the edit warring policy. Amortias (T)(C) 13:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked Rubyaho as a sock. I'll wait to see if responds here, but they should be blocked for violating 3RR (by quite a bit).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23, Sira Aspera also engaged in an edit war on the Handan Sultan, reverting seven times. – <b style="color:black; font-family: Tahoma">DreamRimmer</b> (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * for Sira Aspera as they have continued editing but have not responded here, and given that they made another (partial) revert at Halime Sultan there doesn't seem to be any indication that they aren't going to continue reverting to their preferred version. Aoidh (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Jack deGrasse Tyson, J. Doe, et al; reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

I've been trying to revert unreferenced election results from this page for a few days. There's no consistent user to report; one banned user, two anonymous IP users, one named user. So maybe This notice board isn't the right place, but for sure we can't have users repeatedly re-introducing unreferenced, challenged, and ill-formed content back to the corpus. I need some help with it. Is it possible I'm fighting puppets? Unfortunately, the requirements of reporting here mandate that I notify users who might not have done three reverts themselves directly. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've read through the docs here a couple times, but I can't figure out what "ANEW" is, or how it's different than "edit warring / 3RR warning". -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Jack deGrasse Tyson a few hours prior to this report, via Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007. No prejudice against further action (SEMI maybe?). DMacks (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC) DMacks (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ for a year (closing as "already blocked", though). &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, when in doubt, just add "WP:" in front of it and enter it into the search bar – it's an abbreviation/shortcut for the "Administrators' Noticeboard (subpage for reporting) Edit Warring". Face-smile.svg
 * The "ANEW notice" is An3-notice and needs to be placed on the user's talk page. The requested "Diff of ANEW notice" is the proof/diff of you making that notification. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Seems like the instructions here could be clarified. I'll do that presently. Meanwhile, I've added uw-3rr to User talk:Jack deGrasse Tyson and posted a link to it here. Also, I've again reverted the unreferenced material at the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Tipp81 reported by User:Ser! (Result: Indefinitely pblocked from editing article)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 6 Mar
 * 2) 31 Mar
 * 3) 31 Mar
 * 4) 31 Mar

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 23 Mar and subsequent diffs

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

Comments: The user has repeatedly added c. 12,000 bytes of content that is entirely unsourced, self-admitted WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and when told about WP:ONUS has continually reverted to their preferred version. It's not quite a 3RR violation yet, but the editor is a WP:SPA that has only ever edited this page and is continuing to edit-war, and after the last comment on the talk page has continued to revert to their preferred version.<span id="Ser!:1711925030558:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Edit_warring" class="FTTCmt"> — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * User wanted sources for the information I posted on the above page.
 * I have now posted a number of sources in the reference section of the above page.
 * I have attempted to resolve this dispute on talk page but I found my reply's to repeatedly misinterpreted. Tipp81 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Tipp81 is a WP:SPA and has only edited the article. I have indefinitely pblocked them from editing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Artem Petrov CHV reported by User:Auzvandil
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comment: I noticed crazy hoax & copy-pastes in Chuvash page. I created a talk page to discuss with him. Explained hoax & copyrights in the page. However, the user @Artem Petrov CHV keep reverted my edits. I tried to talk with him in his talk page but he didn't reply me. Then I created another talk section for him and even tagged him. Despite all my efforts he didn't reply me and reverted my edits. There's no doubt it will be fourth or fifth time and I'm tired to deal with someone who denied to talk with me twice. Auzandil (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Kurzon reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Gameplay */ It says so in the sources"
 * 2)  "/* Gameplay */"
 * 3)  "OK, I've added some sources, though I think it's a bit pedantic to do so in this context since any idiot can access and play this game"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1216521431 by FMSky (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Re"
 * 2)   "Re"
 * 3)   "/* March 2024 */ re"
 * 4)   "Warning: Editing tests on Atomic Heart."
 * 5)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Atomic Heart."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring continues, despite talk page messages. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Artem Petrov CHV reported by User:Auzandil (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (1)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Auzandil (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC) I noticed crazy hoax & copy-pastes in Chuvash page. I created a talk page to discuss with him. Explained hoax & copyrights in the page. However, the user @Artem Petrov CHV keep reverted my edits. I tried to talk with him in his talk page but he didn't reply me. Then I created another talk section for him and even tagged him. Despite all my efforts he didn't reply me and reverted my edits. There's no doubt it will be fourth or fifth time and I'm tired to deal with someone who denied to talk with me twice.
 * This is so far more of a content dispute, really, and I encourage you to keep it going on the talk page. Bring in other editors, preferably with subject-matter expertise, if you have to, to help reach a consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Phạm Huy Thông reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1216629480 by BlueboyLINY (talk) it was well documented in the article and it’s a known fact that he had various charity foundations"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Adding unreferenced information about living persons (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Only two reverts (the first one above is the original edit, not a revert; it should have been under "previous version reverted to". Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

User:143.58.205.157 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "So it is not editorialising to mention a certain fact at one place in the article, but it somehow is editorialising to mention the same fact elsewhere in the article?  That makes no rational sense.  The bottom line is this: this information is accurate; you admit it's accurate.  So it's going in.  That is the end of the discussion, and I will not engage in any further debate on this topic."
 * 2)  "Not editorialising.  That was the inquest verdict."
 * 1)  "Not editorialising.  That was the inquest verdict."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit warring continues. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Makks2010 reported by User:The Herald (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Category:Countries of Voice of Global South added"
 * 2)  "Voice of Global South Summit"
 * 3)  "Category:Countries of Voice of Global South added"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on India."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Sri Lanka."

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

Comments:

Further edit warring on India. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please wait to report editors after they have violated 3RR, not when it looks like they're about to. Also, notwithstanding the comment above, user does not appear to have even edited, much less edit-warred on, India anytime recently. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? They're a whisker from being blocked on India today, and have now moved their edit-warring elsewhere.  Indeed, if they revert anyone else today, I'm going to block them myself. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like you saved me the problem while I was typing this :) Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I decided to look at the actual history of India and found the edit warring (you have to go several pages into it from the user end). {{{ping|The Herald}}, it would nonetheless have been very helpful if you had provided diffs to review. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yea, I was actually searching and piling up the diffs when you declined it. That happened because I put Sri Lanka as the primary target in Twinkle ARV. Will recheck next time fo sho. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:4021:DE00:80F7:9F14:7472:1231 reported by User:RL0919 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1216817840 by RL0919 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1216816249 by RL0919 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1216813581 by TechnoSquirrel69 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1216802864 by TechnoSquirrel69 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1216813581 by TechnoSquirrel69 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1216802864 by TechnoSquirrel69 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Atlas Shrugged."
 * 2)   "/* April 2024 */ edit warring to insert a personal interpretation"
 * 3)   "/* April 2024 */ again, stop edit warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Isisiscool reported by User:FlightTime (Result: User indef'd by )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Special:Diff/1216962972

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:The Doom Patrol reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Blocked)
Pages:





User being reported:

Previous version reverted to on Katchatheevu:

Diffs of the user's reverts on Katchatheevu:


 * 1) 21:07, 31 March 2024‎ Undid revision 1216554655 by Ratnahastin (talk) Vandalism. Removal of sourced content without explanation. Go to talk page and explain before further reverting.
 * 2) 14:13, 1 April 2024 Rv mass vandalism by Rzvas. Explain in talk page how it is a "garbled verbatim" and reach consensus before further revert.
 * 3) 09:36, 2 April 2024‎ The Doom Patrol Rv mass vandalism of sourced content by Ratnahastin without explanation, and refusing to discuss the matter in talk page.
 * 4) 15:41, 2 April 2024‎ The Doom Patrol Repeated vandalism. No explanation whatsoever, and refusing to discuss the matter in talk page.

Previous version reverted to on Enforcement Directorate:

Diffs of the user's reverts on Enforcement Directorate:


 * 1) 20:34, 29 March 2024 WP:CRITS. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia & not a newspaper to public every allegations made by the Opposition.
 * 2) 14:29, 1 April 2024 Stop adding distorted data baout conviction rate. There's already a discusison at talk page. Reach consensus there before blatantly reverting. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
 * 3) 09:49, 2 April 2024‎ Rv Ratnahastin. See WP:CRITS. Repeatedly adding fake data about conviction rate, misusing Wikipedia for propaganda.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * (himself warning others against edit warring)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Mislabeling any edits he disgrees with as "vandalism" contrary to WP:NOTVAND despite having been warned to stop it.

Was reported to ANI before making 4th revert on Katchatheevu and there as well he has doubled down with his disruptive behavior and falsely accused others of making personal attacks. Ratnahastin  (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked The Doom Patrol for 48h for WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA (repeatedly labeling other editors' edits as vandalism).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

User:808 AD reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1217048374 by M.Bitton (talk): the oued kiss was there before you and the other editor came here. So it's one that must be kept until we discuss it. Stop edit warring please."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1217047868 by M.Bitton (talk) I read it. Now it's your turn. The article says nothing about the borders so don't add something that makes no sense"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1217046493 by M.Bitton (talk):Please stop it. What you're trying to add here is not sourced."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1217031836 by Descartes16 (talk): Source?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Conflicts between the Regency of Algiers and Morocco."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

They keep replacing content that is mentioned in the article with something that isn't, while arguing for an imagined status quo. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Descartes16 came out from nowhere to add their unsourced information. I don't understand why you're defending it. The oued Kiss was there before you both came there. 808 AD (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"808 AD" who has done nothing but stir up trouble and edit war since joining the project is Possilikely a sock of Pickle_Rick_02, aka SimoooIX. Please see the SPI's result. M.Bitton (talk)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Exteahans71 reported by User:Lizthegrey (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I think this should be moved to a seperate article, so there is little clutter. Added this just in case."
 * 2)  "Added link." Note: this did not actually only add a link, it reinstated the disputed content, and this does not appear to have been a mistake/merge conflict
 * 3)  "These are not indescriminate facts and fan speculation. These actually came from real sources, and I think it should be fair, it should have real information, that is very important."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing."
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken."
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Turning Red."
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Turning Red."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Production section */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Production section */Add 3RR acknowledgment."
 * 3)   "/* I think relocating the production section into a seperate article is a better idea. */ Reply"

Comments:

See also ANI discussion, but this is a clearer cut 3RR violation in meanwhile. User repeatedly has blanked warnings on their talk page, or said "sorry" while continuing to do the behaviour of edit warring and pov pushing. lizthegrey (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Thatoneindianboy reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Félix An reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1216982320 by Moxy (talk) re-add image until I can find a better one as per talk page discussion."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1216980633 by Moxy (talk) Not a joke, that is the park in question, it is helpful for readers of the article to show Toronto life"
 * 3)  "/* Parks */ update skiing information, rm Centennial Park skiing, add photo of Earl Bales"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ replied"
 * 2)   "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ clarified"
 * 3)   "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ clarified"
 * 4)   "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ clarified"
 * 5)   "/* The image I took of skiing at Earl Bales */ clarified"

Comments: There have been only two reverts ... No. 3, above, is the edit reverted to, which does not and never has retroactively made it a revert. While there are reasons why this image is probably not a good fit for this article, which I will go into in the talk page discussion after I'm done here, trying to resolve this with a report to this noticeboard was not the best course of action. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Discussion..... Ask for input here and got it. Hoping this is resolved. Moxy 🍁 20:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have understood why people don't like my photo, so I won't put it in those articles anymore. I have not and will not violate the 3RR. Félix An (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't be disheartened about this..... I'm expecting great content contributions from you. Moxy 🍁 00:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Constantin Petcu reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on FCSB."
 * 2)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on FCSB."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on FCSB."
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on FCSB."
 * 5)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FCSB: Constantin Petcu did not participate, but the discussion is there, and he has been editing since at least October 2023.

Comments:

Repeated deletions (five times). tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Trailblazer101 reported by User:MiztuhX (Result: No violation; MiztuhX warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) |n_(1978_film)&diff=next&oldid=1217058318
 * 5)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

| Wait, we're seriously getting our tails in knots over trying to add an inflation cost of the budget in 2023 dollars to this article? Acts like bully.

| We are citing the web version for this instance

| No, I understand perfectly.

| All this WP:BLUDGEONING isn't going to prove that an inflated budget is relevant and further affirms my belief it shouldn't be included.

| I've seen it before where users in disagreement with the community tend to make long messages and multiple discussions to further infuse their point without reason or compromise, and if I've learned anything from those situations, it is that more often than not, these users cannot be reasoned or negotiated with, and that, for the good of the article, it would be within the best interest not to entertain these distractions much longer.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_(1978_film)#Revert_#1_&_#2| I will note that, as sourced in the infobox of the article, the budget is listed as $55 million by Box Office Mojo, which is a reliable source. I have included that source in with the budget claim and adjusted the wording.] Acting unilaterally without any discussion on user board or article page, violating WP:3RR

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_(1978_film)#Revert_#1_&_#2| I am entitled to make a WP:BOLD edit, nothing prohibits that] Justifies WP:3RR by using WP:BOLD

I warned the user about violating [WP:3RR] on 3 April 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_(1978_film)#Disputed_%E2%3_Dis} and today 5 April 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trailblazer101#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trailblazer101#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:



Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trailblazer101#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion





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

Comments:

Blazer101 was aggressive and accusatory towards me from the very first time he posted a message on the Superman (1978 film) article page. He labeled me as someone who could "not be reasoned or negotiated with." He accused me of WP:BLUDGEON and did not show good faith towards me or civility on our first contact. He claimed I was being "disruptive" and "uncooperative" when I am none of those things. He accused me of some very serious charges, like "targeting" another editor, when I was only having a difference of ideas and an exchange of opinions with this other editor, trying to gain a consensus. He unilaterally made judgments over topic we were discussing, as if his was the last and final word in the matter, and I did not know who this person as it was the first contact he made with me. I felt threatened by his verbal assault that I sought the advice of aother administrator on-line on how to deal with such raw, displaced anger directed towards me which made me fearful of being on Wikipedia and running into this person. Then, he publicly addressed me and berated me without any scruples or conscience, saying that I was "disruptive," "signaling out" editors, to drop the stick and move on. He went so far as to say that "I have now issued you a formal warning on your talk for your behavior and attitudes..." I had the distinct feeling that he was deliberatly trying to hurt me and to intimidate me. Is this how fellow editors treat each other? Where is the civility? Good faith? I responded calmly to his rant, reminding him to have good faith, and summarized the ways I had tried to reason and compromise. I even said, "If I am wrong, show me how you have tried to compromise." I warned Blazer101 that he had reverted my dispute-inline edit twice, knowing that there was a discussion regarding this very issue on the article talk page. Instead of dealing with the issue at hand on the article page, he chose to be disruptive and edit war. I told him this was a violation of WP:3RR. I ended by asking him to take a step back, take a breather, and move away from his entrenched position. And that I was not the enemy. I also want to note that Blazer101 has made edits unilaterally without discussing them on the article talk page even though I have asked him to discuss it first. He uses the BRD process to justify his edit war, knowing full well that there are discussions regarding these very issues on the article talk page, for example, whether to use a disputed-inline tag, the veracity of budget numbers, and whether 3RR is justified, etc. He acts unilaterally when making edits and reverts and also tries to gaslight me by making outrageous claims like saying the consensus was against me in his edit summary, when no such topic was discussed. I kept trying to appeal to his reason, ask questions, remind him of WP:EQ, WP:AGF, WP:POINT; and to not edit war. His reply was to insist that he was being WP:BOLD and kept defending Betty Long, who has never validated or commented on Blazer101's behvaior. I told him I never targeted Betty Long and suggested he was acting unilaterally in making edits/reverts and I brought up WP:POINT, that he was not interested in improving the Superman article; instead, he added a Box Office Mojo citation to further strengthen a line from being questioned on issues of veriability, bascially to edit war under the guise of improving a line that already had two citations, and despite knowing that the very line was being disputed in the article talk page. I implored with him to:  Please... review the above WP links I shared with you above. Take a break. Rest easy. I won't revert your revert, or escalate this anymore. And thankfully he finally came back with a calm, measured response, and I was very happy. I thought I had gotten through to him and things would run smoothly from this point on. I continued my negotiation with Betty Lang and things appeared to run smoothly until Blazer101 made another appearance on 5 April 2024 and began his edit war again, reverting unilaterally, and without notice on any talk page an edit I had made a couple of weeks ago under the justification that it was an "inflated figure," whatever that means. Luckily, there was another editor, GoneIn60, who was mediating between Betty and I and he recommended to Blazer101 " always advise other editors that it's best to leave one as opposed to outright removal. It's also helpful to drop a note on the article talk page as well. This gives editors that frequent the article time to fix if you aren't able (or willing) to locate the proper sourcing. It also has the added bonus that someone else passing by that just happened to stumble across the article may be able to fix it as well." Which is what I have been trying to tell Blazer101 for a week now. In conclusion, all I can say is that Blazer101 has engaged in WP:3R and has been abusive as well as disruptive. He calmed down one day but came back looking for ways to cause trouble and reverted my edits knowing that I was being collaborative with the other editor, making progress with the editor/mediator and spoiled any progress we were making. For that I feel he should be sanctioned or banned so that we might continue making progress in our collaborative efforts. MiztuhX (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is the second time this user has reported an editor from the Superman (1978 film) article for alleged edit warring just because they don't agree with the current consensus not being in their favor. The prior report was for another editor here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This editor has been constantly disruptive and threatening. He knew that Betty Lang were working out our differences and instead of being a collaborative influence, instead chose to be antagonizing towards me. He reverted edits 4 times without posting on an editor's message board or on the article discussion page. He has never had anything supportive or collaborative to say and does not act in good faith. Read his comments. Most of them come off as a bully, as if he thinks he can bully people to do what he wants instead of showing civility and good manner and treating other editors with good faith.  MiztuhX (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Trailblazer made two reverts in the article, one on April 3, and the other in two consecutive edits made on April 3 and 5. They have not come even close to violating 3RR., this report is a very messy, hard-to-follow rant. You are warned on two fronts: first, if you persist in filing meritless reports, you risk being blocked for abuse of process; and, second, your comments about others are personal attacks for which you may also be blocked if you continue. I almost pblocked you now from editing the article and the Talk page because of your behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked MiztuhX for 48h for personal attacks based on their comment above mine, which, amazingly enough, came right after my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

User:2605:8D80:1390:A106:543:46B:94D6:54A3 reported by User:Neuropol (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "#article-section-source-editor"
 * 2)  "#article-section-source-editor"
 * 3)  "added information  #article-section-source-editor"
 * 1)  "added information  #article-section-source-editor"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Zhuge Liang."
 * 2)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Zhuge Liang."
 * 3)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Zhuge Liang."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

clear vandalism + 3RR Thanks, Neuropol  Talk  15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet another report mistakenly counting the edit reverted to as a revert. I have, however, reverted them again for you. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Fantastic Mr. Fox reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You aren't listening. WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies here."
 * 2)  "WP: VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOORIGINALRESEARCH"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Rhemaiza (talk): After 8 reverts, you give an answer. You need a source to back it up, per WP:RS"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1217519488 by Rhemaiza (talk)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by Rhemaiza (talk) to last revision by Fantastic Mr. Fox"
 * 6)  "Reverted 1 edit by Rhemaiza (talk) to last revision by Fantastic Mr. Fox"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1217518853 by Rhemaiza (talk)"
 * 8)  "You're now at 3RR, I advise you post on the talk page before you are reported to WP:AIV"
 * 9)  "Reverted 1 edit by 114.79.55.34 (talk) to last revision by Fantastic Mr. Fox"
 * 10)  "Reverted 4 edits by 114.79.55.34 (talk): Use talk page, you are adding unsourced info."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See comments.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Fantasic Mr. Fox hasn't been warned, but with this edit summary "You're now at 3RR, I advise you post on the talk page before you are reported to WP:AIV" clearly shows that they are aware of the 3RR rule and the disruptive nature of edit warring.

The other party involved has received a proper edit warning only after this "Amazing Disgrace" of an edit war (article is about a folk song), but at least a "vandalism" warning which is of course technically not correct but should have created an inch of restraint, however with no result. Austronesier (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I stated In my first edit that the user had made a WP:BOLD change that I initially thought was worse (They had a source for a portion of it). The IP triggered the 'bad faith/problem' edit filter in recent edits, which is where I checked it and noticed the user removing sourcing, and making drastic changes. Then, in response my reversion, the user reverted me, without any explanation (Not stating anything till there 8th edit summary, let alone about the mistake regarding my unnoticement of 1 Source), which leads me to believe they don't want to talk through there (WP:BOLD) edits on talk page, which made me feel they placed false information down intentionally -since they just kept reverting me, and using a separate account as well to join in. Someone else also reverted him, so he lacked consensus. Overall, if @Austronesier considers constantly reverting someone refusing to discuss, as well as being confronted by 2 users for being potentially false, is 'edit warring' (I think there is a clause in there for unsourced info against consensus), then I must ask how on earth do you expect me to deal with content being added that is clearly against a local consensus, other than to use up other time in something like an ANI case or a RFC? I could have stopped at 3 reverts, but there was no way the user (Who used 2 accounts, by the way) in question typing the content down was ever considering giving a thorough explanation for removing sourcing and changing the entire lyrics of a song on a Wikipedia page? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Upon checking your revision, you seem to have missed I asked him to discuss on the my first edit, again. WP:STABLEVERSION applies here, I asked him/her in the edit note to explain on the talk page, despite not taking the initiative of starting the discussion for him. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have cited the 3RR-rule but should also be aware about its full content. The only exemptions to the rule are  cases of plain vandalism and block-evading sock edits. The additions of the other party were obviously problematic, but not to the extent to go beyond 3RR. WP is a collective project and no one is entitled to stop other editors by all means (including highly disruptive means) just on the base of feeling to be right. We have channels to handle abuse and disruptive editing that is not vandalism, including this noticeboard.
 * I don't think you should be blocked for this edit-warring event and for failing to understand even now that it always takes two to edit-war, but should least be sternly warned not to repeat this again. –Austronesier (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I won't. But it became obvious from the users 2nd revision that they were attempting to fly under the radar, and I took reverting after that to be WP:3RRNOT since the user was clearly diehard about inserting his changes, which were very bold (and also formatted incorrectly) into the article without an inc of competence in regards to communication. The IP created an account with the sole purpose of edit warring, still refusing any verbal response, convinced me this user had bad intentions at heart here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * has blocked Rhemaiza and the IP for 24 hours each; they have also extended-protected the article. Given that FMF has blatantly violated 3RR, I am puzzled why Jauerback has not also blocked them - or at least formally warned them.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23, Both users were SPA's (and WP:DUCKs of one another) that have so far refused to discuss at all, created seemingly to fly under the radar on a low level article, as well. I believed 3RRNOT applied here.
 * Comment: On a different note, Bbb23, this is I believe the 7/8th time you have engaged with me. I haven't gone as far as a WP:HOUNDING case yet, but your edits towards me have, in my opinion (and broadly speaking) all accusatory, confusing, non constructive or calling me an SPA (strangely, something you didn't call the editors who were blocked here). This case is about me, and I'm open to questions or criticism, but there is a line between criticising a user and harassing a user. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was only made aware of the issues at WP:AIV. I admittedly didn't look that close at other potential offenders. Feel free to block them yourself. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * . I vacillated between a warning and a block, but their insistence that their edit-warring was exempt under 3RRNO tipped the scales in favor of a (light) block. Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Sweety943 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Sweety943 is an editor who obsessively changes numbers in economics articles, but rarely bothers to provide a source for his/her edits. He/she has been warned about this repeatedly - see User talk:Sweety943.

Previous version reverted to: set of 10 edits by Sweety943 between 15:14, 26 March 2024‎ (UTC) and 09:16, 31 March 2024‎ (UTC) These edits changed many numbers, including changing the GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹182373.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reverted GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹182373
 * 2) 08:25-08:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reverted GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹182373. This was followed by 08:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) which changed the GDP per capita from ₹182373 to ₹190302.
 * 3) 09:31-36, 6 April 2024 (UTC) changed various figures, including changing the GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹211373.
 * 4) 14:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reverted GDP per capita from ₹141373 to ₹211373

Sweety943 sometimes changed the GDP per capita number three times to ₹182373, once to ₹190302, and then twice to ₹211373. It was therefore reasonable for to believe that Sweety943's edits were obvious vandalism (and therefore exempt from the edit-warring policy).

Diff final warning for deliberately introducing incorrect information: 08:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Economy of West Bengal

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Peter L Griffin reported by User:Sawerchessread (Result: Stale, but increased protection to EC)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - On April 1, 21:32, changes Libs of TikTok ("accused of" phrasing). Change was reverted in, which Peter reverts again
 * 2)  - On April 1, 06:05, reverts a removal of the phrase "altercation". This was a lead section debate around whether inserting "pouring water" was necessary in the lead. I remove "pouring water" and change to "during altercation", and an uninvolved editor removes "during altercation". Peter reverts this change.
 * 3)  - On April 1, 06:07, reverts a removed wikilink within a quote.
 * 4)  - On March 31, 05:17, Ongoing discussion and reverts of "Pouring water" phrase in lead
 * 5)  - On March 31, 05:18 removes verification failed tag to contentious sentence around notes about self-harm. Tag was added here in response to Peter's edits (here) See also talks about failed verification in lead here Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict, apparently this sentence was part of the previous edit war three days ago.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Previously has done edit warring and was warned by admins: []

Continued edit warring after Page Protection was removed. Edit warring accusations have been flying since.

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

Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict

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

Comments:

Additional dispute is on here, for the admin who was resolving this issue the last time:User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC) Previous edit war documentation from 4 days ago or so is here


 * Note the result of the previous edit war was 1RR. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not want this to come to this point again. Since the last dispute, I have been careful to not edit war, which is evidenced by each bullet point being one revert; not multiple.
 * Proof I did not violate 1RR
 * I will address Sawerchessread's bullet point's one by one:
 * 1. The first linked edit is not a revert, but a normal edit adding contextual information -- "To revert is to undo the action of another editor." The second link is to a revert. Since there is only one revert, 1RR is not violated.
 * 2. There is only one revert, and no violation of 1RR. In fact, I am restoring the page to Sawerchessread's preferred wording, despite my own objections.
 * 3. This is a MOS edit. Whether or not it is considered a revert -- which is highly debatable -- it is only one edit, and does not violate 1RR.
 * 4. One revert. No violation of 1RR.
 * 5. Sawerchessread mischaracterizes the edit. Another user, on the talk page, had disputed my edit from last week where I stated in wikivoice that Nex Benedict left notes suggestive of self-harm. That user noted that all sources quoted the medical examiner, and did not make this claim in their own voice, and the wording then was not sourced. So, I qualified the claim as the opinion of the medical examiner, and removed the failed verification tag. This is clearly not a revert at all.
 * In fact, to be proactive so that nobody could misconceive me as edit warring, I self-reverted my own edit here about the phrase "drug overdose" so that the matter could be discussed further on the talk page.
 * Proof Sawerchessread did violate 1RR
 * Sawerchessread, on the otherhand, has violated 1RR.
 * In this edit, after the full protection was removed, they replacing the "pouring water" phrase with "during an altercation", without consensus. I revert this because of the lack of consensus and warn Sawerchessread that any further revert will violate 1RR and could subject them to a block. Nonetheless, Sawerchessread reverts my revert anyway . This second revert flagrantly violates 1RR.
 * Sawerchessread has also, interestingly, engaged in the same behavior that I have engaged in -- namely single reverts, nearly always to my edits . As single reverts are not violative of 1RR, those reverts are not rule-breaking per se. Yet it is interesting that since Sawerchessread apparently believes single reverts constitute edit warring, they must also believe a different standard applies to them.
 * Peter L Griffin (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have similar concerns to those in the report about the editwarring of Peter L Griffin, and agree that there is a violation of the bright line of WP:1RR. I hadn't gone through quite so comprehensively as, but left a note on the talk page of Red-tailed hawk, who handled the previous case.  Griffin appears to believe that "contentious" means anything that he does not agree with.  I am concerned about the appearance of WP:STONEWALLing and WP:Civil POV pushing, with a heaping side of Wikilawyering. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wrote a note on 's usertalk to request help after posting the first ANEW report; I then followed up about concerns related to PLG's post-ANEW conduct. Since then, my concerns continue about ongoing risks of disruption, including what appears to be bludgeoning various discussions, as well as apparent original research and potential attempts to assign undue importance to a single aspect of a subject, apparent original research and potential attempts to right great wrongs , , , . Beccaynr (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Other users are expressing support for these discussions as well. I, and those users, believe that your edits are undue. You aren't privileged over other users in making edits which are contentious. Peter L Griffin (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears I have not edited the article since 03:34, 28 March 2024, to add a failed verification tag; this was further discussed in this talk section, e.g. , . Beccaynr (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also potentially relevant is PLG's conduct at Talk:Conspiracy theory and Talk:Conspiracy theory, including concerns expressed by participants, e.g., ; and this comment  in discussion about another topic; and this recent addition to a BLP . Beccaynr (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You finding evidence of people disagreeing with me does not mean I don't have the right to make my case. I disagree with you, yet I don't dispute your right to hold the view you do. Peter L Griffin (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I added links to discussions, including further examples of potential bludgeoning, along with what appear to be similar concerns about conduct expressed by participants; as well as a comment made about Wikipedians, and what appears to be the addition of contentious material sourced to e.g. the WP:NYPOST in a BLP. In my request for help at Valeree's usertalk, I included some diffs of conduct towards myself and others; overall, I am concerned about what appears to be bludgeoning discussion and editing processes, which seems to impair collaboration on article development. The rapid and repetitive rate and high volume of participation by PLG creates a challenge for presenting a concise overview of various concerns related to potential disruptive editing . However; warnings and guidance have been provided, and from my view, there appears to be an ongoing risk of disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC) - expand comment to clarify Beccaynr (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Put simply, disagreeing with you, or anyone else, is not a policy violation. Your insinuation that it is runs contrary to Wikipedia being a collaborative platform. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are very dogmatically wikilawyering everything and citing random essays/policies which are only tangentially related to the mater at hand. You were found to be edit warring as well, so I don't understand why you're singling me out like I'm the problem here. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I added links to discussions, including further examples of potential bludgeoning, along with what appear to be similar concerns about conduct expressed by participants; as well as a comment made about Wikipedians, and what appears to be the addition of contentious material sourced to e.g. the WP:NYPOST in a BLP. In my request for help at Valeree's usertalk, I included some diffs of conduct towards myself and others; overall, I am concerned about what appears to be bludgeoning discussion and editing processes, which seems to impair collaboration on article development. The rapid and repetitive rate and high volume of participation by PLG creates a challenge for presenting a concise overview of various concerns related to potential disruptive editing . However; warnings and guidance have been provided, and from my view, there appears to be an ongoing risk of disruption. Beccaynr (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC) - expand comment to clarify Beccaynr (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Put simply, disagreeing with you, or anyone else, is not a policy violation. Your insinuation that it is runs contrary to Wikipedia being a collaborative platform. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are very dogmatically wikilawyering everything and citing random essays/policies which are only tangentially related to the mater at hand. You were found to be edit warring as well, so I don't understand why you're singling me out like I'm the problem here. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

From my view, this is a conduct issue. You have made some broad statements here, such as "Other users are expressing support for these discussions as well. I, and those users, believe that your edits are undue," but this is not a content dispute. For example, in the RM, some support for the proposed move does not excuse what appears to be your bludgeoning conduct; another example is during discussion about how to develop content related to the medical examiner's report, differences of opinion between editors does not excuse your conduct when it appears disruptive to the consensus-building process.Since the time another editor was p-blocked from the article and article talk for what appear to be somewhat similar behaviors (complaints at ANI included edit-warring, bludgeoning, adding 'the facts don't care about your feelings' to the article talk page, an extreme focus on 'pouring water'), I think there had been constructive article development and discussion on the article talk page; but then your rapid, repetitive, and high-volume participation began. At 19:40, 26 March 2024, you asked me, "Why do feel as though you dictate where the discussion takes place?" and I offered a link to the talk page guidelines to follow up on my comments about the already-open discussion, ; your response seemed to personally attack me, which you later seemed to continue after a warning.As noted in my comment above, you have been warned about your conduct, e.g. , , , and guidance has been offered, e.g. , , , , , , ; but you do not seem to WP:LISTEN, e.g. because you appear to be continuing to bludgeon discussions, edit-war, attempting to use original research, and recently began a repetition of discussion about your focus on 'pouring water', contrary to the talk page guidelines e.g. , ,. From my view, the scale and impact of your ongoing conduct seems disruptive to building the encyclopedia, and particularly the Death of Nex Benedict article, including on the article talk page. Beccaynr (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this might be getting out of scope for 3RRN. Indeed, the edit warring from PLG at the page in question seems to have stopped.  (To be clear, I think there was a violation of 1RR, but it is now stale, and I understand that blocks issued here are to prevent further edit-warring.)  I share some of your other concerns, and it looks like something to potentially raise at WP:ANI if the pattern persists. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * yeah this dispute now spans multiple admin talkspaces, mine and plgs and other talkspaces, a dispute resolution ticket and two edit war tickets… but also the wikiwar has gone cold for now.
 * given its been only two days since the last reverts on this ticket, not sure if its a temporary truce or a permanent ceasefire though in this dispute User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * agree that if the die down in activity stays then ticket should be considered stale User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. As seen above in my first reply, User:Sawerchessread has edit warred and violated 1RR. This should be dealt with appropriately. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that you hold myself and yourself to a different standard, and act as if your edits are privileged over mine. Since the full page protection, User:Sawerchessread seems to have taken on a role similar to yours previously.
 * Both of you seem all too happy to direct me discuss on the talk page (and you reply to everything I say, which in your case, you don't count as bludgeoning). But you, in the meantime, insist that the page gets to look the way you prefer with the discussion pending, even when my preferred version is what the original full protected page displayed (ie. pouring water). It's unclear why you think the page should show your preferred version by default (achieved through violations of 1RR) while we discuss. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit-warring claim has, as noted above, gone stale and no one seems to be interested in pursuing it anymore. But it looks to me like it was valid ... Per WP:1RR and its reference to 3RR, it does not matter whether your reverts are of different editors. Otherwise, people would be able to get away with the sort of gaming Peter did in the discussion above. Because of this I have raised the page to extended-confirmed protection for the current duration, which will have the effect of preventing Peter from editing the article for however long it takes him to make it to 500 edits (which shouldn't be long, although I would advise Peter not to do something like make the appropriate number of rapid minor edits to random articles, because the filter can catch that, and that will result in more direct sanctions), although he is free to edit the talk page all he wants in the interim. And really this is in general probably a good idea for this article at this point. So, I will be logging this at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well ... didn't take long for Peter to reach EC. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * TBF, PLG's not wrong when he pointed out that texas no longer has associate judges, so he has been technically correcting wikipedia and making it better. And there hasnt been any edit-warring on the Nex Benedict article in the hours since PLG's gotten EC.
 * PLG has pointed out on the talk page that the other party to the editwar has been editting the article extensively during the period while PLG was unable to revert. Not strictly reverts on Becannyr's part, but might not have been the most gracious action either. No reverts tho by PLG.
 * Maybe we (PLG, Becannyr, me, etc.) should all use this dispute resolution ticket I opened up a bit beforehand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Death_of_Nex_Benedict User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not involved in the 1RR violation reported here. And there appear to be multiple editors participating in discussions on the article talk page, so the scope and scale of the proposed dispute resolution process seems unclear to me. Also, in my recent edits, I attempted to address what from my view appear to be some MOS and sourcing issues, and expanded some content with reliable sources. As I said on the article talk page, I appreciated Sawerchessread's feedback . As noted here, ongoing conduct issues can be address in appropriate conduct forums. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The other party is YOU! See here: . I do appreciate that the edit war seems to have died down. Peter L Griffin (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:342:C003:3F0:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 3 months)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

IP moving around on the /32 range, but the same user adding the same content after I explained why they shouldn't. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 23:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, are you sure you mean /32 rather than /64? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll assume /64 was meant; the /32 list seems to contain no additional contributions to the same page. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that's what I meant. I'm admittedly not great at understanding the difference or what /32 and /64 are! — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , no worries – in case it's actually still unclear, the number says how much of the left side you refer to. Each block separated by colons has a size of 16 (bits). You meant all addresses that start with "2601:342:c003:3f0", so you meant four of these blocks. That's 16*4=64.
 * Almost always, 64 is the highest meaningful number you'll see, as almost every internet connection is allowed to use an entire /64 for themselves. So if you want to calculate a range, you can use the IP range calculator (IPv6) but if your result has a larger number than "64" at the end, replace it by 64. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Alsho093 reported by User:Vnar123 (Result: Reporter blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported: user:Alsho093

Previous version reverted to:

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

A similar revert two days ago:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The user has been extensively engaged in edit warring by removing sourced information regarding the Georgian language in the infobox of the principality in question.

In the first revert, the user deleted the sourced information in the infobox about the Georgian language. In a similar revert (in which they deleted information about the language from the body of article) claimed that the source was "unrecognized" (what does that even means?) and "deleted by verifiers" (this is not true, no "verifier" has deleted the source and it has never been proven that these sources are unreliable in any way).

The user quickly abandoned using this argument and in the second revert claimed that the information about the language should not be added because it is not contained in the Ottoman archives and "Circassian conference". Well, there is other source proving the information, the user failed to challenge it in any way, just because this archive and conference don't state the information does not means the other source provided is unreliable. There are many sources proving the information even if it is not contained in the Ottoman archive or Circassian conference, but the user disregarded this and provided no argument disproving the source in any way. The user also failed to provide where did the "verifiers" assess the added sources as unreliable (because this never happened).

In another revert user just claimed to protect the page from "vandalism".

In forth revert, they claimed that the information should not be added because it is not a source from the time this historical principality existed (secondary sources are allowed on Wikipedia, but user deleted the source for this reason.

The user was asked not to engage in edit war and prove their point with arguments, but they failed to provide any substantial argument, and deleted the message about edit warring on their Talk page, after which they continued to engage in edit war. The attempts to settle the situation through discussion failed as user just deleted the my message from their Talk page. - Vnar123 (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Vnar123 as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense reported by User:Getsnoopy (Result: No violation; Getsnoopy warned)
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:

Doesn't seem to understand that WP:EDITCON states that consensus has been established if there hasn't been any controversy related to the edit for a long time; in this case, that is about 3 years. Keeps citing that the statement was not cited when it clearly was. When the edit was being challenged, guided the user toward the talk page and that the edit has to be left standing until consensus has been reached on the talk page, but just does not want to listen. Getsnoopy (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * . Remsense has only reverted twice., on the other hand, has reverted 3x in the last 24 hours and more if you go back into March. They are therefore warned that if they continue to edit-war (against multiple editors I should add), they may be blocked without warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that this kind of retaliatory report at this notice board is a very poor idea.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Onlyloss73 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Demographics */  biased mods"
 * 2)  "suck my dick fat bitch ugly mod"
 * 3)  "Very biased sources from the guy who made this article. Probably he has a mail order bride too."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked. This could probably have been reported at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User:143.58.205.157 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "How is it 'not neutral' to say this when it was literally what the inquest found?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on South Yorkshire Police."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hillsborough disaster."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked before the same addition. Has also added this. Will not listen and because of my 48 hour block recently I am apparently a hypocrite. Might I suggest a longer block? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverting continues. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You are a hypocrite. We both got banned on the last occasion, me for 24 hours and your for 48 hours (I assume it was rightly found that your behaviour was more egregious than mine - since I was the one explaining my reasoning, whereas you were (and still are) the one sticking his fingers in his ears and refusing to provide any reasoning. In those circumstances how dare you say to me - 'You've already been blocked before. Give it a rest, won't you?'  You were blocked for longer, so why don't you give it a rest!

Furthermore, why don't you explain yourself on the talking page? I have already posted there providing the BBC source that confirms that I am right. Why don't you respond demonstrating that I am wrong? Oh wait, you can't - because you know perfectly well that you are the one who is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.58.205.157 (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN and more importantly, it is mentioned later on. There is a logical flow to leads. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I explained this before, by the way. See your edits: you posted a link earlier today. You are responding to a different discussion. At no point have I said that it wasn't a "gross act of negligence", I do not agree with you adding it in earlier in the lead. You keep on pushing your preferred version. That's why you were blocked before and now we're here again. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * by User:EdJohnston. Aoidh (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Getsnoopy reported by User:Remsense (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1217671447 by Remsense (talk) Seriously, please stop. You are the one edit warring, and it is going to be a problem for you. Edit consensus that has been there for 3 years requires consensus to remove, not consensus to keep it. Not to mention, it is sourced."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1217666809 by Remsense (talk) WP:EDITCON applies, as it was added almost 3 years ago at this point, so it is the prevailing consensus. It hasn't been shown that it *is* undue or original research. Please, stop edit warring, and let the discussion play out to ultimately make a decision."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1216372630 by Gawaon (talk) That discussion didn't even invite anyone, and it was closed within 3 days, which is not a fair one. Please don't do this until you have consensus."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The Bitcoin paper? */ Reply"

Comments:

Slow-motion restoration of obviously unsourced claims justified by a misguided interpretation of consensus. I am not sure actually what would convince them that they should not restore their preferred version of the page, but it's not site policy. There's no discussion to play out: OR has been demonstrated, and all that's left is to stonewall, conveniently with the version they like still up. Remsense 诉  19:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * per User:Bbb23 in the report below. Aoidh (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Alsho093 reported by User:Lemabeta (Result: Blocked 72 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: Talk:Principality_of_Abkhazia

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User_Talk:Alsho093

Comments:

--Lemabeta (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * by Bbb23. Aoidh (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)