Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive482

User:2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 reported by User:Warrenmck (Result: /64 blocked 2 years)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1221589310 by Warrenmck (talk) You've reverted at least 4 times now, please stop, this is sourced content and important to the article. You've broken WP:3RR yourself while trying to warn me to not do the same thing."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1221576696 by Warrenmck (talk) That's not how Wikipedia works. You need to get a consensus before removing sourced content. You keep talking about a discussion but leave no link, nor do you back your claims of a "scholarly consensus". Clearly, there's disagreement between scholars and it's important to show both sides. Robbeets is just as reliable a source as Vovin, if not more."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1220312786 by Warrenmck (talk) There's no consensus on the Talk page. The only thing eating up a lot of space are the many sources by Vovin, who, while dismissing Altaic, has proposed much more niche theories with far less evidence. He doesn't seem like a trustworthy figure on the subject, yet he's given a lot of space here."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Proto-Altaic Forms */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Proto-Altaic Forms */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Proto-Altaic Forms */ Reply"

Comments:

This is a sticky one, and I think I need to make it clear that I actually am guilty of a fourth revert if we consider the one made by the logged in user (which I suspect a sock issue of due to the identical edits). My fourth edit was made in response to a mid-talk-page-discussion revert, but I should have caught that was technically the fourth and will own up to that.

There's been a big issue on Wikipedia with macrofamily articles and big lists of in-universe content being presented as real. Altaic is a proposed macrofamily which had historical acceptance by has now fallen well outside the academic mainstream, though it's probably not the easiest thing to determine from this article. There was a larger discussion in the past year or so about excising a lot of these lists, but only Altaic has had issues with significant pushback. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd like to say a few things.
 * I assumed it was up to the person removing sourced content to gain consensus on the Talk page, not the other way around.
 * This user has made many edits on this page from a clearly biased perspective. The whole point of the article is to explain what the theory is, not to debunk it in every sentence.
 * The user is warning me and reporting me for something he is doing himself and was first to do, being edit warring and break the 3 revert rule. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The solution to both is consensus, which he/she did not have. Given that the user is biased against the theory and using its page to try and debunk it, it's safe to assume no reasonable consensus or compromise can be reach. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the onus to gain consensus is on the person supporting the inclusion of disputed content. That would appear to be you. If no consensus can be reached, then the content does not belong in the article.  Simple as that.  It can be frustrating, I know.  It's the worst possible system with the exception of all the others.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd like to mention that I noticed the table was removed back in July of 2023 for WP:UNDUE. This is completely unjustified. Like I've been trying to say, the point of the article is not to debunk it. People should be able to read what the theory proposes and then read the criticism. Saying it's been given undue weight is like saying teaching the theory of evolution on the evolution page is undue because it's too convincing.
 * Also, the person in his/her first revert said to see the Talk page. But there was no consensus on the Talk page and he still has yet to link the discussion he keeps referencing. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You're the one who needs to demonstrate consensus, per WP:ONUS. And if the content is that convincing, then you should have no problem establishing consensus.  Wikiprojects, noticeboards, and RFCs can all help with that.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it here but again, the purpose is not to convince, it's to explain the theory. What would consensus even look like? Do I need a 2:1 majority or something? 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Persuasion is how Wikipedia articles are built. You can see the page on consensus, which is a fluid concept.  While not a vote, numbers certainly do play a role.  Basically, when you get broad agreement on the talk page (not unanimity) then you have consensus.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to be clear that my edits to Altaic languages have been done in conjunction with the talk page and both the Linguistics Wikiproject and WP:FTN due to the risk of this looking like an issue with WP:RGW considering how systematic this issue has been on Wikipedia. I also routinely tag other linguists to look at my edits, as I did in the discussion about the edit war in question to avoid just overly relying on my own perceptions and judgement. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RGW is laughable. I've seen your edits and reverts. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:68AB:3511:3ACB:5016 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

User:GOLDIEM J reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User is edit warring to restore unsourced claims into the infobox. They claim sources are not required as "Russian law says" the Ukrainian territory is a part of Russia and "It's real". Cambial — foliar❧ 22:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Since when have I claimed that sources are "not required?" Given that the article lists these same regions in the Wikitable further down the article, I feel confident in saying that there's bound to be citations for this provided later on in the article. Furthermore, you made original edits and I reverted them. Then you attempted to restore your reverted edits without bothering with the talk page at all. I, conversely, have been attempting to confer with you to reach a consensus. The only edits of yours I've undone were attempts to restore what I reverted. I have not at all attempted to restore my own original edits that you reverted. So you're the one who keeps changing it to how you think it should be. That's literally the only reason I kept reverting you, not because I wanted the article to be a certain way, but because I thought we needed to reach a consensus first before proceeding any further. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is about edit warring. You broke 3rr on the article to restore unsourced material. Citations later on in the article do not support the unsourced content that you have repeatedly reinserted without sourcing. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see what the admins think of this. I could've very well reported you for the same behaviour you're alleging me of, but reason number one I've never done that before and don't know how, and thing number two I'd prefer to be cooperative and be productive and reach a consensus. So you can thank me later for letting you go and instead choosing to talk. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Except that I haven't broken 3rr and I'm not adding original research to the article. But you are. So you would have no basis on which to make such a report. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Except you didn't even revert a previous edit initially. You made an original edit that changed the map to an outdated version. So I reverted it. You need to reach a consensus before attempting to restore a reverted edit.
 * Anyway, can we let the admins deal with this now, please? I don't wish to discuss further while the review is ongoing. GOLDIEM J (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

When you restore material lacking a source, you need to add reliable sources that support the content - especially when the existing cited scholarship directly contradicts it. Instead, you edit warred to keep original research in the article that contradicts the cited scholarship. The fact you're unable to see why that behaviour is inappropriate is why a sanction against you is necessary. <i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 23:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Fun fact, you edit warred too if I did. Also, I wholly disagree that there is any contradiction in the sources, and your arguements don't make a lot of sense to me. In case I need this in my defense, let me just say that I was not entirely familiar with 3rr beforehand and that I do not believe I was acting in bad faith. Please leave it there while review is ongoing. GOLDIEM J (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * . Honestly, Cambial Yellowing should have been blocked for longer, partly because of their block log and partly for having the chutzpah to file this report. Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

User:MylowattsIAm reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Maybe just leave it in there and then start the talk page thingy like I suggested several times before? Would be kinda cool if you took other users into consideration."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1221854606 by Moxy (talk)"
 * 3)  "I saw what was linked but it still doesnt explain anything. What I meant is that if other articles also mention vice-chancellors and vice-presidents then it would only make sense if this did too. It would make sense for certain types of articles to follow a certain pattern. After I last revered Nikkimaria there were edits by several other editors and noone seemed to have a problem with the vice-chancellor being mentioned. If you want it so bad for it to be removed then discuss it on talk page."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1221768509 by Nikkimaria (talk) That doesnt explain anything. Please stop edit warring and making unreasonable reverts. Discuss it on talk page whether it should be removed or not. Otherwise it can stay as is."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1221622634 by Nikkimaria (talk) If we can show the vice-president of US in the infobox of USA as well as vice-presidents of other countries in their infobox then there is no reason why the German vice-chancellor cant be shown  in the infobox for being the third highest ranking official of Germany. Some countries even have up to five leaders in the infobox anyways."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no ongoping tlak in this cases at time of this post ...but we have talked about honorary titles before.

Comments: Somewhat new editor...if there willing to go to talk perhaps block can be avoided. NEW TALK Talk:Germany Moxy 🍁 12:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:128.92.27.115 reported by User:Neuropol (Result: Blocked 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked for 31h by for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:ActionHeroesAreReal reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: No violation; try WP:ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: – stable edition, correctly labelling Hamed as British only.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) – first revert, with a spurious edit summary of "Not constructive".
 * 2)
 * 3) – not a revert, but re-adding the disputed content with a new source rather than discussing at article talk page.
 * 4) – reverting my revert, with no response to talk page message left for them, inviting them to continue discussion at article talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at article talk page. No responses to my most recent posting after almost two months.

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

Comments:

User:ActionHeroesAreReal mistakenly insists on Naseem Hamed being labelled as British-Yemeni. Hamed was born in the UK, is a British national, has never lived in Yemen (from where his parents hail), is not notable for his ethnicity, and has only ever competed under a British boxing licence. User chooses to ignore all the various BLP lead section guidelines including MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, and MOS:FIRSTBIO. After initially using an unreliable content aggregator as a source, they have now brought up one source which labels him as such, but the sole inclusion of this fails NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE.

I briefly considered WP:DR, but believe it is unnecessary because this is a clearcut case of a user not understanding the above guidelines, and refusing to engage in discussion. Without making this a conduct issue, they do appear to make a habit out of not using sources correctly or misinterpreting them, and have received numerous warnings by other experienced users. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . There was edit-warring in March, but there is no violation weeks later. Based on a very cursory review of 's edits, I think the best place to address the user's edits is WP:ANI. Include whatever evidence you feel is appropriate, but at a minimum you should include previous edit-warring, not only on this article but on others, and you should also note personal attacks in edit summaries. I'm not comfortable unilaterally blocking without more evidence, and this is not the board to provide that evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Bharatian Mapping reported by User:MiasmaEternal (Result:Blocked via WP:ANI by Dennis Brown )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This the real info, flag and emblem Azad Hind and it is not a vandal"
 * 2)  "Emblem change"
 * 1)  "Emblem change"
 * 1)  "Emblem change"
 * 1)  "Emblem change"
 * 1)  "Emblem change"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Azad Hind."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am reporting this user due to repeated addition of suspected original research. User has refused to communicate regarding warnings by other users. Also triggered edit filter: Special:AbuseLog/37631579. MiasmaEternal ☎  08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This user has already been reported at WP:ANI – 2804:F14:80EE:5A01:C1B6:4511:8DE3:83A7 (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * by me for WP:NOTHERE after investigating at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

User:197.231.201.171 reported by User:Neuropol (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1221867506 by Neuropol (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1221866547 by Neuropol (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1221861674 by Neuropol (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ishaaq bin Ahmed."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ishaaq bin Ahmed."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * 1) Update: User has initiated a discussion with me on my talk page.
 * - Aoidh (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Thegon12345 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

WP:LTA, see Sockpuppet investigations/KızılBörü1071. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Mar485!123 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 2)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 3)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 4)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 5)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 6)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 7)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 8)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 9)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 10)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 11)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 12)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 13)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 14)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 15)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 1)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 2)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 3)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 4)  "/* Allergen Immunotherapy */"
 * 5)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 6)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 7)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 1)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"
 * 2)  "/* Helminthic therapies */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * They insist on changing the colour of the text to red (see diff), despite being asked numerous times to refrain from doing so. M.Bitton (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * They are also removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content. They are a student editor. —asparagusus   (interaction)  <sup style="color:#562">sprouts!  14:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:8512:5300:7107:681:51A1:B6E reported by User:Martinevans123 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: Now up to 9 reverts. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * by User:Smalljim (rangeblocked). - Aoidh (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

User:209899Geovanni reported by User:Aoidh (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 14:25, April 27, 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:08, May 2, 2024
 * 2) 15:56, May 2, 2024
 * 3) 22:25, May 3, 2024
 * 4) 16:06, May 4, 2024
 * 5) 17:35, May 5, 2024
 * 6) 18:33, May 6, 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:21, May 5, 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars (Diff along with Diff of talkback notice on user's talk page)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 20:25, May 6, 2024

Comments:

Not a 3RR report but an edit warring report, editor is changing "is" to "are" despite explanation by numerous editors why this article would use "is", and has made no attempt to discuss this outside of some of their edit summaries. - Aoidh (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Apaugasma reported by User:Ronnnaldo7 (Result: Closed - see v/v filing above)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (08:36, 29 April 2024)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (08:36, 29 April 2024)
 * 2)  (20:18, 29 April 2024)
 * 3)  (09:17, 4 May 2024)
 * 4)  (08:35, 6 May 2024)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (19:03, 1 May 2024)  (22:59, 6 May 2024)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (20:16, 29 April 2024)  (21:22, 29 April 2024)  (15:26, 2 May 2024)

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

Comments:

User keeps deleting the discussed WP:RS for "Piruz Nahavandi" and is in violation of WP:3RR. They have reverted other users as well while going against the WP:Consensus, and are acting as if they own the page. User claims the WP:RS is an example of circularity, but they have yet to show any concrete evidence of the circularity and are the only one to claim it is. Furthermore, user has stated that the Hiro source is an RS, but is now going against the discussions & consensus. Attempts to discuss on the talk page have led to the user continuing to make changes on the article page while reverting multiple editors. Apaugasma falsely claimed that there is rough consensus when they are the only one arguing against the source, and persistently reverted edits/removed the WP:RS: 1 2.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Closed As far as I can see it is the filer here who is continuing to attempt to insert disputed content and it is also the filer who appears to have consensus against them at Talk:Abu_Lu%27lu%27a_Firuz. Discussion to continue at the reverse filing above. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Ronnnaldo7 reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: User final-warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (22:47, 28 April 2024)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (18:50, 29 April 2024)
 * 2)  (18:09, 1 May 2024)
 * 3)  (23:34, 5 May 2024)
 * 4) ] (22:59, 6 May 2024)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (19:03, 1 May 2024)  (14:46, 2 May 2024)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (20:16, 29 April 2024)  (14:51, 2 May 2024)  (15:26, 2 May 2024)

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

Comments:

User keeps adding disputed content "Piruz Nahavandi" despite clear opposition on talk, in last (5 May) diff against rough consensus (especially re inclusion in the lead) on talk. User has consistently refused to follow WP:ONUS and has let other users do all the consensus-building. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You can add another revert by Ronnnaldo7 that was made after the above report was submitted: 22:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC) -- Toddy1 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll also note there's a retaliatory report below, with further demonstration they don't understand WP:ONUS (believing RS must automatically be included) and some aspersions (there has been talk about abuse of power re you focus on Arabic work, your lack of acceptance with the addition of the Persian language name is an example of WP:POV before). With rough consensus I was referring to and re inclusion in the lead to, where despite  still . Thanks for your time, ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 07:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note my final revert was in an attempt to bring it to a neutral state until the resolution is reached, which is Iskandar323's version. I have since been reverted and don't plan on making changes anymore as a result. Further discussions will be continued on the article's talk page on my end. Also, my edits were independent WP:GoodFaith edits per WP:Bold that were based on the discussions we had on the talk page in including the WP:RS. Apaugasma has been the one to persistently revert edits, whereas mine have not been reverts (With the exception of the last one, which was in WP:GoodFaith to bring it to Iskandar323's version per above).--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that Iskandar323 has explicitly stated I don't have a version, so this is clear misrepresentation. Nevertheless, I tend to agree with Toddy1's suggestion below. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that I was referring to the article version (which was Iskandar323's latest edit as a neutral third party), and not Iskandar323's version/view of it all; therefore, I believe your claims of misrepresentation are baseless. Furthermore, your personal attacks of calling me incompetent are unwarranted, but I digress. Anyways, I'm glad you agree with Toddy1's suggestion below, as do I.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know this is getting too long and I'm sorry, but this is just too rich to omit here: if it's not Iskandar323' version, since he just made a cosmetic edit while opposing at least part of your edit on talk, it must be your version. So you reverted to basically your own version though calling it "Iskandar323's neutral version", against consensus on talk, "in an attempt to bring it to a neutral state"? I find the denial and misrepresentation here more concerning than the edit warring itself. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 11:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Ronnnaldo7 has said that he/she was going to just drop this. I recommend that this (and the retaliatory report by Ronnnaldo7) should be closed with no action. If he/she resumes edit-warring, then the report can be resurrected. -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User warned that continuing to insert disputed content will lead to a block. Black Kite (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

User:79.31.103.194 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  11:32, 6 May 2024
 * 2)  13:27, 6 May 2024
 * 3)  15:15, 6 May 2024
 * 4)  15:21, 7 May 2024
 * 5)  04:52, 8 May 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: We've been seeing similar edits and blanking  on this article from IPs in recent weeks. Page protection may be warranted. Generalrelative (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Meanwhile, one more revert from the IP:
 * 6. 06:03, 8 May 2024
 * Generalrelative (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Aoidh (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Rsparkles reported by User:Sariel Xilo (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 13:45, 29 April 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:50, 7 May 2024 to 16:55, 7 May 2024
 * 2) 17:03, 7 May 2024 to 17:05, 7 May 2024
 * 3) 17:11, 7 May 2024
 * 4) 17:21, 7 May 2024
 * 5) 17:26, 7 May 2024

Diffs of the IP's reverts:
 * 1) 13:46, 7 May 2024
 * 2) 16:29, 7 May 2024
 * 3) 7 May 2024 to 17:02, 7 May 2024
 * 4) 17:07, 7 May 2024
 * 5) 17:17, 7 May 2024
 * 6) 17:22, 7 May 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Original discussions occurred on the editor's talk page instead of the article's talk page
 * 1) 17:10, 7 May 2024 (Template used: Softer edit warring notice for new editors)
 * 2) 17:30, 7 May 2024 (Template used: Violation/potential violation of the three revert rule)
 * 1) User talk:Rsparkles 7 May 2024 to 17:09, 7 May 2024
 * 2) User talk:Rsparkles 17:14, 7 May 2024 to 17:46, 7 May 2024
 * 3) User talk:WlKlCZECH11 22:01, 7 May 2024 to 22:17, 7 May 2024
 * 4) Talk:Cameron Stewart

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
 * 1) Rsparkles
 * 2) IP 2600:1700:B92:900:D6B:599:4ADE:99EC

Comments:

I'm not a checkuser so I don't know if Rsparkles is also the IP editor or if this is multiple editors doing the same thing. Rsparkles & the IP editor have been removing part of the controversy section (specifically, that Stewart was dropped from comics projects which is cited by industry outlets) & minor rephrasing of parts. Two different editors tried discussing this on Rsparkles' talk while Rsparkles kept restoring their preferred version; during this, I suggested bringing it to the article's talk in an edit summary and gave Rsparkles an edit war notice & then a 3RR notice. Even without the IP's contributions, Rsparkles has gone past 3RR. To restore to the stable version of the article (29 April 2024) would take me past 3RR, so I'm bringing this here instead. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I am involved, as I reverted and warned IP user, but I'd just like to say that this seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV as the section is well-sourced and it appears to be an attempt to sanitise the individual's entry on Wikipedia. behaviour (continuing to revert after being warned about WP:3RR) is clearly problematic so may warrant sanctions, but I think perhaps applying pending changes protection might also be justified as this also occurred in  which was left unchecked until . Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 03:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Adam Black hit the nail on the head here; this isn't the first time this has occurred where a mix of IPs and just registered editors try to sanitize this subsection. I did go to RPP before the edit war escalated but it hasn't been reviewed yet. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The other thing I want to flag is that after I put the notice here, a new editor started to engage in the exact behavior as Rsparkles (from article changes to the language used in the edit summary). When I put a notice on edit warring on their talk, they did not respond but oddly Rsparkles did (included a link to the discussion above). Rsparkles later denied that they are also WlKlCZECH11; not sure if the best practice is to also put a notice at Sockpuppet investigations or to wait until this discussion resolves. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * by User:Dennis Brown for 1 month. Aoidh (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Mzexpert reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Correct first line"
 * 2)  "I added correct information about comic con arabia not saudi comic con"
 * 3)  "Added good version of original comic con arabia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."
 * 3)   "rm as now moot - by all means update the article but please don't paste that stuff back - please take a look at different articles and word things to how articles are worded here if that makes sense"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is adding promotional content to the article and is edit warring over it, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 21:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 3 different IPs had added this crap yesterday here, here and here which I suspect are all the warrer, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 21:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Reported user got g-locked for Lock evasion. Nobody  ( talk ) 09:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh okay fantastic, Obviously withdraw this now that the account's meta-locked. Thanks, Kind Regards, – Davey 2010 Talk 09:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * as global lock evasion. - Aoidh (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:94.200.83.10 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported (IP Address 1: User being reported (IP Address 2: User being reported (IP Address 3:

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:

Three IPs provided as editor is IP hoping around addresses in the United Arab Emerites. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 06:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) Please refer to Special:Diff/1222837817 for an admission by the editor that the different IP addresses are them. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 06:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's a statement, not an admission - I've not tried to hide that there are different IPs. 94.200.83.10 (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your further admission I guess. It will make it easier for an admin to determine that you violated 3RR. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 07:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Quite probably. Obviously ignoring 3rr is far worse than making egregious BLP violations and wildly ignoring established consensus like you. 2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no BLP violation. Stating there was indicates that you have no understanding of BLP. There's no excuse for you violating 3RR. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 09:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There absolutely is a BLP violation, and the RfC responses demonstrate that. Starting that there wasn't inductees that you have no understanding of BLP 2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLPPUBLIC, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". The fact that you still haven't self-reverted after 4 reverts speaks against you. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a BLPCRIME violation which trumps BLPPUBLIC. The is not a criminal conviction. We cannot call him a war criminal in wikivoice. The other responses to the RfC all understand this. I'm not going to revert to a version that violates such a fundamental policy. There are also not multiple RS that explicitly call him a war criminal, despite your repeated claims. 2001:8F8:1D63:6485:17CD:3B73:BC40:4AD0 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For interest, Not longer ago I looked over talk archives in order to see which editors were involved in previous discussions in order to alert them to current discussions. While doing so, I found your claim of established consensus lacking. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the IPv4 for 3 months and 2001:8F8:1D00:0:0:0:0:0/40 for 72h, both for block evasion (User:Orchomen).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:91.217.105.54 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1222868951 by Czello (talk) That's not what it says at all. Here is the English version of the source "kaszanka must have made its way to Poland from either Denmark or from Germany, through Silesia. Wherever it first came from, it is eaten to this day." It seems you are edit warring in behalf of the previous user, Revirvlkodlaku."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1222861710 by Czello (talk) The source material states it is not a historical fact. What is stated on this page is just wrong interpretation."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1222702719 by Revirvlkodlaku (talk)"
 * 4)  "The place of origin is still unknown and the source referenced is in a foreign language"

Comments:

Deletion of sourced material, refusal to discuss on talk despite request to. Oddly their last edit summary quotes something that supports the text they are deleting. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 12:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I did not receive any request on the talk page and the previous editor deleted my request on talk page.
 * The text "it originates from Germany" and "kaszanka must have made its way to Poland from either Denmark or from Germany, through Silesia. Wherever it first came from, it is eaten to this day" from the reference are 2 totally different statements.
 * The reference is also from a pop-culture editorial website. They have no sources of their own cited. 91.217.105.54 (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Revirvlkodlaku reported by User:91.217.105.54 (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

User deleted my post on their talk page when I made claim of edit warring.

The edits were commented properly, user reverted with disregard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.217.105.54 (talk • contribs)


 * They're well within their rights to remove your comments; meanwhile you seem to be removing sourced information without justification. Perhaps you should discuss it on the article's talk page. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 11:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Reporter blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Cali Farah reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1222938168 by Apaugasma (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1222933437 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1222849023 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Clan structure */ Restoring vandalised content"
 * 5)  "/* Clan structure */"
 * 1)  "/* Clan structure */ Restoring vandalised content"
 * 2)  "/* Clan structure */"

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

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

Comments:

Also edit warring at Somali people. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Also on Samaale. Knows how to edit talk page but does not respond to messages like . ☿  Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Raúl Quintana Tarufetti reported by User:Onorem (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Not a siingle porpose account. And if I were, that´s not a reason to remove well referenced information from the articles. I started the discussion, I gave 7 neutral and serious sources (2 from FIFA), and the other user reverts and reverts."
 * 2)  "The one who removes referenced content from the article is YOU. And FIFA´s official sources you are removing..."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1222797415 by Svartner (talk) 7 serious sources (2 from FIFA, one of them with the list of matches) are enough. Please, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argentina%E2%80%93Brazil_football_rivalry#Count_of_matches"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1222795920 by Svartner (talk) Officiasl FIFA sources are enough. Go to the discussion."
 * 5)  "Taking out all the vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule."
 * 2)   "/* May 2024 */ You are both edit warring. Look at Dispute resolution. I have no interest in this topic."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Deusestlux reported by User:MrThe1And0nly (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: But also on user talk page:

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

Comments:

We haven't edited since the warning, but since we may have both engaged in edit warring beforehand, and since he has been totally unresponsive in attempting to discuss the issue, my only way forward is to seek admin help via reporting, for the alternatives are a) keep reverting, surely risking a block, or b) give up the issue entirely. My goal here is to simply get them to engage in a discussion of the matter.


 * Soooo, it seems going back to reverting is all I can do? No response from them, and no response here. MrThe1And0nly (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

User:서아7 reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: kpop에 익숙해져라 나도 BTS는 좋아해" 원래 한국의 기사는 틀린것이 있기 때문에 소스에는 불충분 원래 영어 원어민은 거의 한국 콘텐츠 안봐"
 * 1)  "Wikipedia pages with editing battles are unreliable articles. It was a correct point that it was mostly remanded, and the history remains.Controlling speech just because it's a new account damages Wikipedia's credibility.You should stop remanding and creating stupid articles. Wikipedia loses its value if it posts incorrect information."
 * 2)  "현재는 돈을 weverse에게 지불하면 사무소 소속자 이외에도 누구나 개설할 수 있다"
 * 3)  "나는 사실을 지적하고 있다
 * 1)  "낡은 정보를 싣지 마라
 * 1)  "o"
 * 2)  "o"
 * 3)  "The organizer pays weverse"
 * 4)  "It is currently being used by people other than hybe members, so it has been removed."
 * 1)  "The organizer pays weverse"
 * 2)  "It is currently being used by people other than hybe members, so it has been removed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Aoidh (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Skibidi36 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I'm reverting this edit for vandalism again, majority of historians as well as the arab wikipedia agree that this is a Saudi victory."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Resuming same edit-warring that's been going on for weeks after previous block Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

User:عبدالرحمن عراق reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
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:

Resuming same edit-warring that's been going on for weeks, after previous block Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Reywas92 reported by User:PaulGamerBoy360 (Result: Stale)
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:

This User Has Been Edit waring With Me, I Have Tried to Keep it Civil, & I Am No Longer Editing The Page Due To It, I Need Administrator Intervention to Stop This User From Undoing Constructive Edits, A Source is Still A Source Wether it Is One Sentence or Multiple Pages. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Reywas92 - Why are you reverting when WP:3RRNO does not apply? Poor sources are not vandalism.
 * Two of these edits were removing copyrighted content copied and pasted from findagrave.com. These others were of his readding of unreliable and inappropriate sources, but I understand I should have just let them stand until Paul actually understood WP:RS. Reywas92Talk 15:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * they were not copyrighted, i used quill bot to change them, if you did a side by side comparison you will se that they are not the same. also i have just found more sources for the cemeteries, but im just going to post them in the afd not the article because aparently we are going to make up guidelines stating that family cemeteries cannot be listed. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Using a tool to paraphrase would still seem to be in violation of WP:PARAPHRASE  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I compared them. The first passage was identical to the entire findagrave.com text, the second consisted only of the first sentences of its findagrave.com entry. I have requested revdel. NebY (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@PaulGamerBoy360 - You are in the wrong here. Reywas92 is correct regarding your sources and edits. A sources it not "still a source" if that source is not reliable. Why are you edit warring with Reywas92?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No, I have read the guidlines & it says you may still use an "unreliable source" as long as you can find more sources to support the facts, there were more sources to support the fact on the intro paragraph, and only one of the sources on the intro paragraph was "unreliable" all the other were reliable, i was in the proccess of finding more sources to support the cemetaries, no guidelines state that family cemeteries cant be listed, I have stopped editing that page. besides even the small "generally unreliable" sources add up with the same information shows that the information is most likely true, they all support eachother, i am in the proccess of finding more sources, but for ofline sources to be found, people need to see that the offline sources are needed. Removing the paragraphs from the article will prevent others from finding the needed sources. (And it seems the discussion about the reliablitiy of Find-a-Grave revolved areoud the people side, and not the Cemetery Side of the Site) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @PaulGamerBoy360 where on WP:RS or WP:V does it say that you can use unreliable sources? At WP:USERGENERATED on WP:RS it specifically lists FindAGrave as one of the "[e]xamples of unacceptable user-generated sources".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll close this as stale, but I wouldn't object to the discussion above continuing a bit. Not excessively, though, as it's no longer about edit warring., if something remains unclear about copyright or verifiability, the Teahouse is a good place to ask. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Delores Hilll reported by User:Myrealnamm (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1223356038 by 109.76.198.112 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1223355380 by 109.76.198.112 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverting "good faith" edits by IP users, and only giving them uw4s. Please check. If I'm wrong, and the IPs are vandalising, then that's a trout for me My real namm  (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the inaccurate information for this notice. I wasn't familiar with the Edit Warring section in Twinkle. My real namm  (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. I cannot believe that anyone who has read the diffs or edit summaries of my changes can actually think my edits were vandalism. We all make mistakes sometimes but my edits were made in in a good faith effort to follow WP:UGC and I clearly explained as much in my edit summaries. Thanks. -- 109.76.198.112 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The user also reverted my good faith edit here (I removed a link from a word that was literally linked in the previous section) and gave me a uw4 here. This is not edit-warring, of course. This should be moved to ANI. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:ADC9:2C9F:7B0:FC19 (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Unfriendnow reported by User:108.35.216.149 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: Multiple (see below)

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  is a partial revert of  at
 * 2)  is a revert of  at
 * 3)  is a revert of  at
 * 4)  is a revert of  at

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Since being unblocked (after using a sockpuppet User:Namenotimportant00 to conduct a wide-ranging edit war), four of ten edits have been to continue these edit wars. Of the remaining six, one is a revert of precisely the same nature (but it is a first revert, not a repeat of an earlier reverted edit), one is inappropriate canvassing, and one is the same kind of unsourced trivia that resulted in the block in the first place. 108.35.216.149 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Affinepplan reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: EC protection, warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1222974899 by Aydoh8 (talk)"
 * 2)  "removed irrelevant and unrigorous political commentary"
 * 3)  "removed irrelevant and unrigorous speculation about election strategy"
 * 1)  "removed irrelevant and unrigorous speculation about election strategy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* This article needs serious revision */"

Comments:

Likely use of anonymous IP edits in attempt to evade 3RR. –Sincerely, A Lime 05:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging @Aydoh8 who warned @Affinepplan. Sorry you got dragged into this :(
 * I believe users @64.112.229.118, @47.230.61.20, @Affinepplan are the same person.
 * Short timeline:
 * @64.112.229.118 attempts to delete portions of article. Reverted by @Ankermast.
 * @64.112.229.118 responds by adding a disparaging Template:Multiple issues message insulting authors of the page. Reverted by me @Closed Limelike Curves.
 * @Affinepplan (believed to be same user as above) reverts to restore the template. (1st revert.)
 * ~1 week passes, with intervening edits from unrelated users.
 * I notice the restored template and revert.
 * @47.230.61.20 (believed to be same user) reverts to restore the template. (Second revert, first in 24 hour period.)
 * I notice the unusual activity and request page protection, as well as warning @Affinepplan. I do not restore.
 * @Aydoh8 takes notice and restores the previous version of the page. @Affinepplan restores (Third revert.)
 * @Aydoh8 reverts again and informs @Affinepplan their actions may constitute edit warring. @Affinepplan nevertheless reverts a fourth time, ignoring warning.
 * –Sincerely, A Lime 06:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Closed Limelike Curves I was going to bring this to AN3 anyway if they kept going. Looks like they've stopped. I also recommend you file a sockpuppet report at WP:SPI as well. Aydoh8 (talk &#124; contribs) 11:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Result: Since User:Affinepplan and User:Closed Limelike Curves have both edited the artice on May 11 I conclude that the edit war is not over. So I have put extended confirmed protection on the article for one month. That will exclude the main warring parties (and any IPs) from editing the article directly. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page and see WP:DR if you are stuck. User:Affinepplan may have been editing logged-out and they are warned not to continue that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Abhishek0831996 reported by User:Pharaoh496 (Result: No violation)
Page:

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:


 * User is removing important edits on the PM of India's page, who is involved in an election currently.
 * He has a history of being biased towards editing.
 * He has reverted my edits twice, in which great care had been taken to ensure neutrality
 * I wrote a message on his talk page and the guy simply removed it!
 * This is the first time im filing such a complaint, so please excuse me if Im doing anything wrong; in which case I shall learn and adapt. I see someone disrupting the process and hence have filed this. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Casteiswrong reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Reported user is actively edit-warring against several editors (includng me) to impose original research in the article and removes srongly sourced content that has been in the article for a quite long time. They have already been warned by an admin for edit warring and also by me, but they keep going on their disruptive path and made not less than 5 reverts within 24 hours. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  10:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Not fair, one user alone is charged with edit-warring while a team of editors with the same objective do not cumulatively break the same rule. This is a conflict between two scholars, Selin and Rashed, where the former is more objective while Rashed adds original research not even mentioned in the original manuscript translation. I am happy to remove all content and just stick the primary source, including my diagram derived from Selin's book and its translation. The readers will decide what to make out of it. Casteiswrong (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You are putting your own POV and reverting edits before consensus. The editors have warned you multiple times. Furthermore the issue regarding historicity of Snell's law has already been discussed by wikipedians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Snell%27s_law#Elaborate_on_Ibn_Sahl's_authorship_of_the_law You cannot push your pov by going against the consensus of other editors. Hu741f4 (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

User:I would be bias if it was allowed reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1223227860

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/1223337759
 * 2) Special:Diff/1223438180
 * 3) Special:Diff/1223455886
 * 4) Special:Diff/1223458796

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1223457507

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1223460616

Comments:

There is longstanding consensus that the fields in the infobox that the editor is editing should not be modified unless broad consensus is obtained in talk. This is evident by another editor previously placing code in the infobox stating. Editor has ridiculously attempted to reverse the onus to obtain consensus in talk by claimed that others need to obtain consensus for why the editor's changes shouldn't happen. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 08:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Notably after the editor was reverted by an admin after the editor's fourth revert, told to not continue, take it to talk and obtain consensus an IP has shown up and reverted three more times (Special:Diff/1223465905, Special:Diff/1223468614 and Special:Diff/1223476797). In the last edit by the IP they left the edit summary "I don't want an edit war, but Labor has a centrist faction" which is almost identical phrasing that the editor uses on the articles talk page in their edit at Special:Diff/1223479083 when they wrote "Simply put, Labor has Centrist factions. I don't want an edit war". I'm not going to open a SPI between a single account and a single IP for obvious reasons but there certainly is some loud quaking. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added CTOPS notice to talk page per WP:CT/CID. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

User:46.44.180.253 reported by User:Air on White (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Out of scope in an article on 'destruction under..." . Despite the valid source, the link to the subject matter is very weak and actually seems biased to force in the unrelated (nevertheless important) subject of climate change. This section should be moved to a corresponding article."
 * 2)  "I am not the same who did the edit in February. Despite this section does have a valid reference, and apart from my valid POV that is also part of the discussion, environmental impact is simply out of scope for an article about "Destruction under ...'. No need to argue with WP on this. If you edit out my deletion again, how about adding similar paragraphs on the deeds of Nazi Germany, early communist China, Stalin era Soviet Union? This section should never have found it's place here from the..."
 * 3)  "Irrelevant to the topic, subliminal inclusion of a positive of element of genocide. See the discussion and my previous reasoning for removing this section. Imagine the same applied for the deeds of Hitler Stalin Mao and their likes. Climate change topics are important yet do not weigh up to massive genocide."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violated 3RR, has made no effort to discuss on talk page instead of edit warring. It was previously agreed upon that the deletion of a section of this article needed consensus. Air on White (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The IP user has been blocked for violating 3RR without an admin commenting on this report. Air on White (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Daniel Quinlan for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I blocked them as part of reviewing a request to protect the article on WP:RFPP. It wasn't based on this report. Thanks for the ping. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User:L.R. Luther reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1223682422 by Eldomtom2 (talk) who males up these rules anyway? The visual editing info details whats being said.  #diff-undo"
 * 2)  "When you edit the page via "Visual Editing" It doesn't say anything about the media needing to claim where it's based or inspired by at all."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1223668014 by Eldomtom2 (talk) Again, please stop removing this. It's getting annoying.  #diff-undo"
 * 4)  "For a millionth time. Please do not change this. It's important to add info that makes the article more accurate. Do not break TOS"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1223393565 by Eldomtom2 (talk) its important to add thia for accuracy  #diff-undo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Amazing Digital Circus."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Amazing Digital Circus."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Can we please remove the "inspired by" section in the infobox? */ reply"
 * 2)   "/* Can we please remove the "inspired by" section in the infobox? */"
 * 3)   "/* Can we please remove the "inspired by" section in the infobox? */"

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User:146.196.34.177 reported by User:Vkwiki100 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 2)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 3)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 1)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 2)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 3)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 1)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 2)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 3)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 1)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 2)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 1)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 1)  "/* Ancient history */"
 * 1)  "/* Ancient history */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dausa."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP user is persistently adding unsourced content to the article. VK  wiki100  15:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edits as unsourced and left a 3RR warning. I won't block, because I am now involved. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The IP has now reverted again, following my 3RR warning. I think they can now be blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them for 48 hours. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Carliertwo reported by User:QuietHere (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Wp:pointy and wp:own: wikipedia is a collaborative project."
 * 2)  "wp:trivia that's trivial content as it didn't happen. wp:undue"
 * 3)  "Right url,  showing professional reviews only"
 * 4)  "wiki is not"
 * 1)  "wiki is not"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit-warring report"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "None of what you're writing makes any sense to me, and I have already made my point behind my edits clear. Again, if you're this dedicated to these changes, please bring them to discussion, or else you will be reported for edit-warring."

Comments:

Notice was removed as improperly filed(???) so here it is again."Carliertwo came to Los Angeles (Lol Tolhurst, Budgie, and Jacknife Lee album) and changed a couple things which I disagreed with. I undid, explaining my reasoning and noting BRD (this was the second reversion), only for them to redo their edit multiple other times (including a second undo in which I warned them of this very report), explaining their reasoning but not following instructions to go to a talk page rather than continue to argue in edit summaries. Carliertwo has an extensive history of being reported on this board, so surely they know exactly what trouble they're causing." QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 20:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User:73.134.81.186 reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC) by Tobby72 (Added image and paragraph regarding 2024 events to Controversies section)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1221695979 by Tobby72
 * 2) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1221880335 by Randy Kryn
 * 3) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1222015962 by Tobby72
 * 4) 14:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC) Partial revert of CanonNi (image)
 * 5) 01:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Revert of ElKevbo (Removed image and different paragraph regarding 2022 events moved by ElKevbo)
 * 6) 13:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1222637235 by ElKevbo
 * 7) 17:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Undid revision 1223285595 by ElKevbo

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC) Discussion started by ElKevbo

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 18:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

The editor has engaged in a slow edit war over content that could be perceived as negative. They have reverted multiple editors, and after the warning and attempt to engage in discussion by, the editor responded then reverted one minute later. Even if the editor is correct about the current event, their actions violate the spirit of the edit warring policy by hampering discussion. Redraiderengineer (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * from article. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Netanya9 reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Indefinitely pblocked from article)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Note: Netanya9 is continuing to revert after this report was made (#5, #6 & #7). Skyerise (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:Netanya9 (Result: Declined Diffs fail to show edit warring.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

Please review several edit wars in editing history.

Core are diffs 4-6 above, where editor copy-pastes several paragraphs from the article and puts them in the lead. Leaving big paragraphs in the article twice.

The talk page has lots of discussion on the lead, this is a controversial page and the lead can not be edited in this big way without consensus.

I have warned the editor both in my reverting notes and on his/her talk page.

He/she has reported me on this page, please help.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

See several 3RR warnings in my edits.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Discussions on NPOV and the WP:BLP lead over long period of time. is just joining this long-term conversation.

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



Comments:

Thank you for reviewing these edits.

Netanya9 (talk)@Netanya

Please note that this is an intentionally falsified reported. Not all the listed edits are from the same day, not all the listed edits are reverts. Supposed revert #2 is not a revert, and it is from May 3. #3 is not a revert, and it is from May 2. Edit #5 is not a revert, it is an initial addition of text to the lead. Edit #6 is not a revert, it is an addition. On the other hand Netanya9 has 6 clear reverts obvious as reverts in their edit history. I only listed four of the 6 in the report above. Skyerise (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC) They are continuing to revert even after being reported and are now at 8 reverts. Skyerise (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * (Comment) @Netanya9, this is a friendly reminder to place subst:An3-notice when making reports. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Diffs fail to show edit warring. Netanya9, you appear to have only edited on this one article for the past 2.5 years and have a habit of trying to block changes.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @EvergreenFir, your review seems biased according to your previous communications on @Skyerise talk page here:
 * I've contributed value to discussions on Marc Gafni's talk page here for many years. @Skyerise is a new (apparently) biased account that only exists since April 2024 possibly a sockpuppet to vandalize this page (as has happened many times over the years.

Bbb23 Daniel Case User:Daniel Quinlan EdJohnston

Could you please help and review this 'decline'?


 * Posting all diff links below, these are all not marked as reverts as user has redone these same edits several times:
 * Edit 1: adding controversial content copy/pasted from article, as duplicate, to the lead.
 * Edit 2: changing 'author' to 'writer' without clarifying on talk page. (Gafni is bestselling author, not a writer).
 * {{{diff|https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marc_Gafni&diff=prev&oldid=1223713736}}
 * Thank you so much for reviewing. Netanya9 (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An editor does not have to clear minor edits on the talk page. Our categories use "writer", not "author". "Writer" is correct usage, "author" is generally used with a following "of": a writer may be the author of such-and-such a book. Writers should be identified as writers in the lead, not authors. Skyerise (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please cite wikipedia source that says professional best seller authors should be listed as 'writers'.
 * Here's some general knowledge of use of these words:
 * "Both author and writer refer to a person who writes. In general, the word author is used to refer to a person who writes professionally, especially someone who writes published books. The word writer is typically used more generally to refer to someone who writes anything, including works besides books."
 * But I don't think we should use the #3RR report board to discuss these detailed matters. Netanya9 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Might I point out that it was you who brought it up here? Skyerise (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, please review WP:OWN. You seem to be asserting ownership over the article. You also have not addressed your obvious COI at WP:COIN. Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Netanya9 Your diff did not work and Skyerise is neither a new account nor a sockpuppet given that their account was created in 2009 and has over 130,000 edits. You, on the other hand, have 278 edits total, the last 196 from the past 2.5 years of which were all related to this one article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Both author and writer refer to a person who writes. In general, the word author is used to refer to a person who writes professionally, especially someone who writes published books. The word writer is typically used more generally to refer to someone who writes anything, including works besides books."
 * But I don't think we should use the #3RR report board to discuss these detailed matters. Netanya9 (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Might I point out that it was you who brought it up here? Skyerise (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, please review WP:OWN. You seem to be asserting ownership over the article. You also have not addressed your obvious COI at WP:COIN. Skyerise (talk) 11:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Netanya9 Your diff did not work and Skyerise is neither a new account nor a sockpuppet given that their account was created in 2009 and has over 130,000 edits. You, on the other hand, have 278 edits total, the last 196 from the past 2.5 years of which were all related to this one article.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Apoel4 reported by User:Shahin (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

Hi. he was banned for WP:DISRUPTIVE. after ban is lifted he is back and doing again. he vandalised the article after warning. and insist to doing it again and again.Shahin (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello . Why should I be banned for deleting invalid content?
 * A false claim is made in this article.
 * The Asian Football Confederation has never said anything like that. Apoel4 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one week. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I won't step on Jake's toes, but, you could easily have been blocked too, in fact you had more reverts than the blocked editor. Apoel4 seems, at least on first look, to have a point.  The sentence they are removing doesn't appear to be supported by the sources (which all seem to be dead links). They provided an explanation in the edit summary, while you just reverted.  I won't do anything myself because this could be obvious vandalism that I just don't understand, but the appearance is that you just weaponized WP:EW to win an edit war. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Shahin has posted on my talk page that edits on Persian WP make it clear that Apoel4 was trying to be disruptive, even if they stumbled onto an actual issue in this particular case. The problem was fixed by Shahin here.  So in case it isn't clear, even tho 3RR was probably broken by Shahin, this is apples and oranges, and they've been reminded, and so I no longer think Shahin could legit be blocked for edit warring too. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored revision 1223801945 by CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk): See ur talk page dude."
 * 2)  "Restored revision 1223801194 by CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk): Looks like u don't know what preliminary means. ASN and planespotters are two of these largest aviation sources and usually don't get things wrong"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Fadedreality556 (talk): Having two sources means that I am more accurate. Both sources agree with each other"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by KcalcNoraa (talk): Preliminary reports are usually unreliable. Besides, there are two cites indicating that the age of the aircraft is 23 years old and that the collision took place at 0945 not 0934. Its literally cited"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 2024 Nairobi Mid-Air Collision */ new section"

Comments:

Over 3rr and slow burning edit warring across several pages. I recognize I did just warn them but this has been a persistent problem. v/r - Seawolf35 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">T--C 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Of all the LAME reasons to get blocked for 3RR—a hyphen! Is there such a thing as a valley to die in? Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Love that comment! — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:98A:4000:3660:8454:F20B:C62D:1228/32 reported by User:Czello (Result: blocked the /64 for three months for persistent trolling)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1223869413 by XabqEfdg (talk) I don't actually think you read the so-called "unreliable source". Having read that article, it is research based, and you need to stop deleting it."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1223868461 by XabqEfdg (talk) (vandalism)"
 * 8)

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Weatherextremes reported by User:Farell37 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: Hello! This user is editing the El Ejido weather station. The users and keeps adding that the station is a secondary weather station (without source telling it's a secondary station), because it's not present on WMO Oscar. Not all weather stations are present on WMO Oscar. The national heat record in Spain was recorded at La Rambla. This weather station (also Montoro station too) is not present at WMO, but is an official AEMET station, which is RS for climate data. Portugal happens the same: the national heat record was recorded at Amareleja and that weather station is not present on WMO. If the weather station is operated and functional by AEMET, which is the most reliable source for climate data in Spain, then it is an official weather station. Farell37 (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are required to notify the other user of this report (see top of page). I've also left you a warning against personal attacks on your Talk page. Accusing other users of vandalism when it's wholly unsubstantiated, as here, is a personal attack. Don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Not even close. Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Arbe21 21 reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff; note that it was posted about three weeks ago in April, but they cannot claim that they didn't see it, because just today they removed it from their talk page (diff).

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

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

Comments:

They're also making personal attacks (see diff). This is very immature and unconstructive. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Jordi reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

User made multiple reversions of my and 's edits to restore sourced content that was removed under the guise of only removing unsourced information. Both of us tried to resolve this situation on the talk page, but to no avail. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material is not allowed. I initially deleted these materials. There is no consensus needed for that. On the contrary, the other user(s) need(s) consensus (and valid sources) in order to restore it. They continue to revert me and to restore unsourced content without justification, this is not allowed (see first sentence). I have appealed several times to "WP:INACCURATE: "Information that is inaccurate beyond reasonable doubt and not attributed to a reliable source should be removed immediately."
 * So the edit war is basically theirs, restoring repeatedly inaccurate statements without a reliable source. This is very disappointing, because I explained the issue the best I could to @Willthacheerleader18, and she is an expert on this subject and should easily understand my point. But she does not engage in a substantive discussion by acknowledging and answering to my arguments, but instead tries to intimidate me with administrative threats.--Jordi (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Jordi has reverted only twice in the last 24 hours.Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:KNIM123 reported by User:D.S. Lioness (Result: Warnings, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:





Previous version reverted to: 1

2

3

Diffs of the user's KNIM123 reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: The conversation in his talk page is in Greek because we are both Greeks. With Google translate i think you can read it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:KNIM123 wants the actress to be older (born in 1945), User:D.S. Lioness (who filed this report) wants the actress to be younger, born in 1947. The sources vary. I can't figure out what the IP editors want, but one of them is blanking part of the article. It appears that the two registered accounts have been reverting about the actress's birth year since about May 9, so this is a long-term edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This edit war involving several IPs is going on for weeks. The page can be semi-protected for now. Capitals00 (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Result: Both D.S. Lioness and KNIM123 are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. Meanwhile I've semiprotected the article for three months. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The difference between us is that i add sourced information from reliable sources, KNIM123 unsourced information. Furthermore,  User talk:KNIM123 - Wikipedia  t refuse to talk with me.  D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You can see the real problem here Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard - Wikipedia D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Дејан2021 reported by User:DerbyCountyinNZ (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Page has been returned to consensus version. 

Diffs of the user's reverts: See the page history for full edit war:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Resuming the above war after expiry of their block: 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User blocked for edit warring:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Page protection was requested resulting instead in both parties to the edit war being blocked, 1 for a week (due to previous EW block) and the above user for 24 hours. That user resumed the edit war within a day of their block expiring. Brought here as directed on resumption of EW. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

User:CaptainCommonSense reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Persistent POV-pushing, OR-oriented editing even after various users explained why this is inappropriate. KyleJoan talk 05:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring on Ana Navarro. Even after being alerted to 3RR on their talk page the user continued to revert the article . EdJohnston (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Capitals00 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Declined)
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)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This is not a 3RR violation report; this is a report of a user's protracted edit warring in one article, Stateless nation, spannig a longer period. Their edit warring in other articles was a subject of several noticeboard discussions elsewhere, and user has been made aware of our edit warring policies multiple times in the course of these (see their Talk page history as they routinely remove warnings).

Here in Stateless nation, the user has been repeatedly censoring any mention of Tamils as a stateless nation. All their edits were consistently reverted by multiple independent editors.

Given that the Tamils have been fighting for independence against both India and Sri Lanka, this can only be seen as an unambiguous POV-pushing, and so one wonders whether this disruption is not a substantial breach of the user's topic ban on India–Pakistan conflict broadly construed (Special:Permalink/841340595), where they were given an explicit warning by : You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  16:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Those routine reverts for removing disruption cannot be considered as "edit warring". However, I reverted Kashmiri only after he failed to justify his revert as visible from this discussion. He is now misusing this noticeboard since he failed to find any valid basis for his restoring a misleading edit.
 * It is ironic that Kashmiri is accusing me of POV pushing while at the same time he is falsifying history over the POV edits which he cannot support with a proper source. No Tamils are "fighting for independence against both India and Sri Lanka", contrary to his false claims.
 * His falsification does not stop here. He is talking about an unrelated topic ban to enrich this frivolous report which was already overturned more than 5 years ago. Capitals00 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, no info was there on your Talk. It may be good to revisit the measure, as it apparently worked so well as long as it was in place. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  16:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Pathetic of you to dream of ways to get rid of me only because you lost a content dispute and your frivolous report also got debunked.With this outright disruptive restoration (with misleading edit summary) by you despite evident failure on talk page, it is clear that you are causing disruption and misusing this noticeboard to win content dispute. See WP:BATTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These were no "routine reverts". This was POV pushing only by you that was reverted by several independent editors. You've brought significant disruption to the article. Combined with all the warnings about your behavious in other articles – warnings that you've been always immediately removing from your Talk – I honestly believe the level of disruption you cause is reaching a point where a sanction is necessary. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  16:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is ironic that you are falsely accusing me of POV pushing while at the same time you are falsifying history over your POV edits which you cannot support with a proper source. No Tamils are "fighting for independence against both India and Sri Lanka", contrary to your false claims. If anyone is being disruptive then that is you as evident from your frivolous report, this outright disruptive restoration (with misleading edit summary), and now your meaningless rants. Capitals00 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So much edit warring is going on that it really seems wrong to just single out one editor. Maybe we'd benefit from full protection. As to the instant dispute, it seems like the relevant talk page discussion only involved the two of you, so it can't really be called consensus particularly when neither of you changed your minds. And really, the issues here are clearly greater than this one article. Maybe it should go to AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1211797731

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&action=history#:~:text=15%3A37%2C%2025%20March%202024
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1219662957
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1220631242
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ella_Thomas&oldid=1222362720

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:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Aileen Friesen reported by User:Rahio1234 (Result: Indefinitely blocked; Rahio1234 warned)
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:

Violation of WP:3RR  Rah ' io ' 1234  13:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've indefinitely blocked Aileen Friesen as a sock, for edit-warring, and for personal attacks against Rahio1234., you reverted eight times. The only reason I'm warning you instead of blocking you is because of the history of that page and the addition of that particular material repeatedly to the article; in other words, there's an argument that the addition of the material is vandalism and therefore exempt under WP:3RRNO, even though, in my view, it is not vandalism. Regardless, your method of dealing with it is poor. Finally, when you file a report on this page, you must do so properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:The Kazanchis reported by User:GSS (Result: Declined; GSS warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The Kazanchis moved page Draft:David Merriman to David Merriman"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Disclosure requirements for paid editing under the Wikimedia Terms of Use."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is definitely an undisclosed paid editor who is desperate to get their work restored. I asked them multiple times not to move the drafts to the main namespace and to submit them for review, but all requests were ignored. They denied any conflict of interest but failed to answer my questions about the images. On top of that, there is a very strong case of proxy/meatpuppetry. I have already filed the case and am waiting for an admin to look at it. The SPI is Sockpuppet investigations/The Kazanchis. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 09:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Anyone who is reading this, I have declared multiple times that I do not have any COI with my contributions. But, I am not understanding why the user GSS keeps saying I am paid for my edits. He has no single evidence for doing so and I believe it is him who is violating the Wikipedia terms. If GSS has evidence than belief show it and then I will get blocked. But, his false claim hits nerve. Rather, I feel like, because he do it, he thinks any other editor also do it. The Kazanchis (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You still haven't provided an explanation on how on earth you managed to find File:Panduka Mahendra Jayasekera.jpg and File:Panduka Mahendra Jayasekera.jpg on Flickr just after they were uploaded by "Chinthaka DG," and then surprisingly user was registered the same day Mahendra Jayasekera was created by you. I asked you the same question on your talk page, and you completely ignored it. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 09:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Declined., you should not be move-warring over whether the article should be in draft space or article space. See WP:DONTDRAFTIFY. This is a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I respect your observation and decision to warn me. However, please note that the articles were draftified per WP:DRAFTREASON #1, and WP:DRAFTOBJECT states that editors with a conflict of interest have no right to object to draftification. This is a clear-cut case of undisclosed paid editing, and who believes that. Thank you. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 13:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2405:3800:84B:1E32:91A6:951B:7279:2F04 reported by User:Robertsky (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Removed redirect to Peranakan Chinese"
 * 2)  "This page tells about all types of Peranakan not only Chinese Peranakan"
 * 3)  "←Removed redirect to Peranakan Chinese"
 * 4)  "This page discusses the type of Peranakan ethnicity, not only the Chinese Peranakan, after this I will be more extensive up to Indonesian Peranakan and Borneo Peranakan."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear CIR/IDNHT. May be block evasion too as this is related to Peranakan Chinese, which the article was moved to after a now blocked editor insisted on a poor attempt at working on the article. There should be a base article/set index for the Peranakan title, however as pointed out at Special:Permalink/1224297316, the version this IP editor is putting in is sub par. – robertsky (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Do note that I also have a standing request at Requests_for_page_protection/Increase to protect the page. Being involved, I am not exercising my admin tools on this. – robertsky (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User:PicturePerfect666 reported by User:ImStevan (Result: Both in breach of 1RR, reporter pageblocked for 48 hours, PicturePerfect666 blocked for 1RR and personal attacks)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Other relevant diffs:
 * 1)  – removal of content
 * 2) Edit warring on the talk page:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024
 * 2) Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024
 * 3) Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2024

Comments: The user is constantly pushing their POV on the article, citing POV breaches. Despite multiple discussions being led on the talk page, user claims that consensus has been achieved, whilst insulting users that oppose their POV, and engaging in WP:BLUDGEON, as you can see on the talk page of the article in question. The user was already warned by two admins of making comments in bad faith — IмSтevan  talk 19:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a bad faith report by a user engaged in highly personal comments and POV pushing on a contentious article. They do not come here with clean hands and boomerang applies to this user as they are not behaving in a way to further the goals of Wikipedia and are behaving disruptive and this report is yet another disruptive action by them.
 * The person making the report has engaged antagonistically for a prolonged period and has made personal attacks on users have ‘an agenda’ or similar. The moved where I placed comments on a talk because they wanted it in another place which is the height of being disruptive and acting in bad faith for no reason other that to cause annoyance. Additionally a whole section on a talk page dedicated to attacking a user who they disagree with should not be on a talk page of an article but on a user talk page which is where discussion was moved to but the reporting user insisted on keeping the inappropriate discussion on the article talk page. A third party has subsequently closed and collapsed the inappropriate section.
 * The person reporting is in clear violation of rules on bold, revert, discuss. They have run in bad faith to a notice board, after engaging in disruptive editing in violation of BRD even after it being expressly made known to them. They are not doing this report in good faith.
 * Additionally only a technical point three reverts does not violate the three revert rule.
 * Personally I’d like to take the person making the report out to the woodshed for their behaviour. I though know that on a topic such as this where the user is heated and has strong opinions, it’s not a good use of a tones time. The person making the report needs speaking to, to ensure they engage constructively and not antagonistically Wikipedia as they are doing on such a disruptive way.
 * In short the reporting user is not behaving to the standards expected of someone in good faith and collaboratively, the ignore Wikipedia Policies and guidelines and make bad faith disruptive action such as this report. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When everybody is telling you that you're wrong, including staff, perhaps trying to shift the blame is not the move — IмSтevan  talk 20:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're both edit-warring, and PP666 is making personal attacks. Who is this "staff" of which you speak? And a reminder to you both - there are significant restrictions on edits concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which you both appear to have breached.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Can you please add the appropriate warnings templates to the page as I feel like me doing so would be inappropriate. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * More evidence of bad faith from the reporter, also ‘staff’ talk about a fawn to authority. Additionally broad brush sweeping rubbish such as ‘When everybody is telling you that you're wrong’ is tosh. Nothing of the sort occurred. Inappropriate personalised sections and alike are not the checkmate or gotcha you think they are. Finally, ‘shift the blame’ this is not a one way street. You must be aware of WP:Boomerang, bring the reporter gives you no immunity for your behaviour which has been petty, vindictive, assuming bad faith, targeted, personalised, and against the numerous civility and editing practices. You have some of the least clean hands of any person making a report I’ve encountered. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They're already there, and you're about to be blocked for violating 1RR and for the personal attacks above.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ImStevan is pageblocked for 48 hours for breach of 1RR, PicturePerfect666 is siteblocked for 48 hours for breach of 1RR and personal attacks.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The previous edit do not clearly indicate his birthplace in the context of modern-day countries, which is "Tangier, Morocco.""
 * 2)  "The previous edit do not clearly indicate his birthplace in the context of modern-day countries, which is "Tangier, Morocco.""
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1224534989 by M.Bitton (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1224488212 by Skitash (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* May 2024 */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* May 2024 */ Reply"
 * 3)   "/* May 2024 */"
 * 4)   "/* May 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

After making an edit with an IP (see 41.251.151.198) that was reverted, they created an account to force their edit through an edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

User:BoldGnome reported by User:Daniel Case (Result: Protection)
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:

I am involved in this one, so for once I'm the reporting user because this user is acting way too much like so many other editors reported here and eventually blocked, i.e., evincing a battleground mentality, editing tendentiously and refusing to seriously discuss edits while continuing to revert. The roots of this go back to January, when the article attracted a lot of views and editing following Gypsy-Rose Blanchard's release from prison. I had done most of the research and writing on the article back in 2017, and as a review of the talk page and archive would show, some people have come by to criticize the way the article was written (when the crime was fresher in everyone's mind and neither defendant had been tried) often in disparaging tones and not really offering specific constructive criticisms when prompted to do so, although I did eventually come to see the points some of them made). One of them then went by the name, and after one such discussion where after expressing some of the same criticism of much of this criticism as rather drive-by in nature, I nevertheless some appreciation for the issues raised and willingness to work with anyone who would constructively address them in rewriting the article intro. Apparently, Cjhard considered this an expression of ownership, and then left the discussion and the page. The "version reverted to" above is the version of the intro they recently wrote. Unaware that they had changed their username in the interim, I edited it mainly for grammar and MOS issues, explained my edits on the talk page while generally expressing approval of its overall structure (in talk page diff above), only for BG to brusquely revert me as linked above. I reverted again, and in their ensuing revert they directed me to this curt response on the talk page, which as I have noted in my response misinterprets consensus ... also, since when have we ever needed consensus to correct grammar or improve wording as long as it doesn't have any bearing on the facts? I have since then made only minor edits to the intro addressing some of the purely technical problems with their language, but apparently that's been too much for Cj/BG, who clearly believes that the article intro must be worded THEIR WAY and only their way (See, for instance, the redundant phrasing restored here, the needless repetition of a name restored where a pronoun would do, and similarly here), regardless of whether in the process as much violence is done to the English language as Nicholas Godejohn did to Dee Dee Blanchard. In perusing BG's talk page, I also found this discussion interesting and relevant to this report. Here, they are asked nicely about having made a revert which also went beyond the scope of the problem addressed and (at least in the other editor's opinion) introduced greater issues in the process. When pressed with specifics about this, they again refused to discuss. Although the other editor was properly blocked for violating ARBECR by initiating the discussion, to me that does not make the issue, and Cj/BG's behavior, any less pertinent here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I warned User:BoldGnome on their talk page that they were risking a block. They have not edited since that time. I would wait a bit and see what they decide. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed, please note that the first diff provided in this report is not a revert and is a substantive change based on the Talk page discussion (indeed, it's literally the same link as the previous version reverted to). The second diff in this report is the first revert of Daniel Case's substantive edit: which I explained to Daniel Case on the talk page, and advised them to seek consensus for their edits: . Instead, Daniel just reverted the revert:, leading to my second revert: . Daniel Case then made a series of smaller, less controversial edits which were accepted except for one specific line of text, which led to the third revert.
 * I'd hope my refusal to facilitate a discussion violating ARBECR wouldn't warrant a response, but it's equally bizarre and telling that Daniel has attempted to use it as evidence that I have a tendency to... edit war?
 * I'm a little surprised to see this report as I had stepped away from the article and was hoping that talk page consensus would overcome... whatever it is that this is. BoldGnome (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hope is not a plan. No one stepped into the discussion.
 * You mischaracterize my changes to your intro as "substantive", when most of it streamlined the wording so we don't needlessly repeat ourselves. I explained this on the talk page; you rejected that (as linked above) with scarcely concealed contempt for the very idea of discussion (which as we shall later see is a continuing pattern with this editor).
 * You conflate "consensus to change the intro" with "consensus for your version exactly as written, complete with typoes, grammatical errors and MOS violations."
 * Also, please stop misgendering me; I'm pretty clearly a he/him/his. I expect a further apology for that in addition to the one you never made for your remarks on the talk page in January.
 * I also find your decision to collapse my response, and only my response, to your comment as inexplicably "off-topic" when it was rather on it (as I was telling you how you could get the consensus you claim to be acting on behalf of) to be extremely presumptuous and telling; any other reviewing admin will probably see it the same way. I have never seen an editor do anything like this. We're getting beyond "overzealous good-faith editor" into "problem user" territory. This is not a good-faith move by any means. It comes close IMO to impermissible refactoring; it seems like you don't want people to read what I wrote. Or you have a thin skin.
 * And the more I look at your history the more I see that this has happened with you before. On your archived talk page, we first see this discussion almost seven years ago, where another poorly explained, overbroad revert led to a brief edit war which finally stopped when Cj/BG explained themselves in detail in a way they seem to have forgotten how to now. The kind of explanation that Cj/BG has, when I made it, dismissively rejected.
 * In June 2017, Cj/BG, who professes above not to know "whatever this is", nevertheless filed an ANEW report on two other users, which was eventually closed as stale. However, shortly after that report the edit warring that triggered it seems to have led (unnoted at that report) to a block for edit warring.
 * This was followed by this discussion shortly afterwards, where it seems that two other editors were rubbed raw by similar practices of Cj/BG as in the instant case. That led to the following section and another warning for edit warring, (this is the talk page discussion referred to). I find the two editors there describing behavioral failings similar to what we see here: finding consensus where it does not yet exist, editing to implement that perceived consensus while discussion is ongoing, and a generally condescending tone concealed under superficial politeness.
 * Later that month another editor requests cj/BG post a more detailed explanation of an NPOV tag they had restored. They responded on neither the article nor their own talk pages, for which the editor who restored the tag called them out.
 * Later they are cautioned against "throwing around accusations" in an AN/I discussion of a controversial block. Again, seems familiar. The archive ends with Cj/BG demonstrating that they are one of those users who believes they have the unilateral authority to "ban" people from their talk pages.
 * And at the end of 2017 we saw that someone was so frustrated with Cj/BG they opened an AN/I thread. While it was probably properly closed, I do note that the user in question, despite being overly paranoid, was on target in noting Cj/BG "at times being unnecessarily snarky or condescending".
 * TL;DR: This behavior is a continuing pattern with this editor, and this should be considered in reviewing this report. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston, please let me know what of the above you consider warrants a response from myself. Also, I had made no edits between Daniel's first warning and his reporting of me here 40 minutes later. What exactly is he trying to do here? BoldGnome (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also "regardless of whether in the process as much violence is done to the English language as Nicholas Godejohn did to Dee Dee Blanchard" what on Earth??? BoldGnome (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also "regardless of whether in the process as much violence is done to the English language as Nicholas Godejohn did to Dee Dee Blanchard" what on Earth??? BoldGnome (talk) 05:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Result: Page fully protected for one week. Going to ANI remains an option if there are any long-term issues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will, of course, refrain from editing it during that time., with all that said above, I still look forward to and invite a discussion of our differences on the talk page. I have already explained my reasons, so it's your move. As linked above you have done this in the past. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick, Daniel. BoldGnome (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am. I look forward to discussing this with you properly and civilly on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Harshdeep Singh Ramgarhia reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:


 * . One revert in the last 24 hours. The last edit before then was on May 1. Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Ravenofpoe1 reported by Anonymous user of a registered user active (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Hello, I want to draw your attention to what has been happening in recent days on the page Aaron Frenkel. A user has arrived who seems to be trying to smear the face of the subject of the article (he describes him as an 'arms dealer' because of his holdings in a few drone and missile manufacturing companies, part of a very broad holding portfolio. And in order to seemingly maintain NPOV, he 'contributed' to the article information about an honor he received from... Vladimir Putin. In short, someone should go in there and see for themselves. I assume only anonymous users are defending the article because of their fear of identifying themselves in such a situation. But the recurring bullying reverts by user:Ravenofpoe1 should end in him being blocked and the article being reverted to its original state. Any further change will be allowed after a discussion on the talk page as usual and based on recognized and authoritative sources. Thank you for handling this. 2A01:6500:A048:2A2E:510:9F22:2958:2140 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add context to this, so as my position can be understood. I came across the Wikipedia page of Aaron Frenkel, and noticed that the subject matter bared no resemblance to what the listed sources were claiming. It seemed likely that it was written by PR Agents (as other members of the "talk" page had been concerned about, going back years). I added additional context, using reliable industry sources, to ensure a full view of his business activities was presented. These business activities are widely reported; by sources who had interviewed Frenkel, and his own companies, yet weren't presented in the article. I do not understand why they should be excluded. The "talk" page was used to debate certain points - and we came to an agreement surrounding his nationality, and his affiliation with Putin. Any admin support would be much appreciated to reach an agreement and ensure the page is balanced and fully representative. Ravenofpoe1 (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's really a shame, pedantic technicalities will ruin our encyclopedia. Closing the discussion with technical excuses will allow Nilon (Ravenofpoe1) to continue being naive and ruin the article, and perhaps other articles too (if he were interested in them...). Administrators are expected not to hide behind technical justifications, but rather to go to the page in question and see what's happening there. It's very, very simple, and what Nilon is doing is very, very transparent. Come on - this is why we chose you! 2A01:6500:A049:4891:84A0:9E22:2927:B59C (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:WordSilent (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (11:40, 16 May 2024)
 * 2)    (16:04, 16 May 2024‎ - 16:05, 16 May 2024‎)
 * 3)  (00:46, 17 May 2024‎)
 * 4)  (18:14, 18 May 2024‎)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (none, it has been discussed on the article's talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

There was a content dispute between me and the user as whether the Donald Tusk article should include pronunciation guide (see the article's talk page). As our discussion came to the stalemate, a WP:3O was requested to help settle down the content dispute. When the third opinion turned out to be unfavorable for the user, they continued to delete the pronunciation guide from the article.

They justify their reverts in a seemingly WP:OWN way as I have a feeling that because of you now the article looks bad and Right now the article is simply not what a proper, normal world leader's article should ever look like, in my opinion. The user appears to have no desire to solve the dispute constructively, but rather keep on pushing their changes so the article is formatted the way they like.

As far as I'm aware, it's not the first time the user has engaged in a dispute like this. Their similar disputes include those at Czech Republic (talk, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Lex Fridman (AN thread, user talk 1, user talk 2, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4), and a previous one at Donald Tusk (AN thread, talk, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3).

There is also an investigation open about whether the user is someone else's sock account. WordSilent (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FG's most recent edit suggests they are trying to compromise. I think also that, barring any extremely egregious conduct, we should defer to the still-open SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Gajlsi reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: User (has already been) warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Diff

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

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

Comments:

Please note that there is a one-revert rule restriction applied to the page. Besides the warning that is linked above, the user should have known about it, considering that there is also an editnotice visible to anyone who has tried to edit the page. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, the user has been informed with Special:Diff/1224420782 about the restrictions in this area after their last revert, and after their latest Wikipedia edit so far.
 * As described at, formal "aware"ness about such restrictions is required before they can lead to a block or other sanction. And as described at , the edit notice itself isn't sufficient to cause such awareness. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The user has now been ; please re-report if they continue. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know ; I find this reasonable. By the way, I had already noticed that DrKay's warning was posted after Gajlsi's last revert, but I also wanted to show that the latter was given the opportunity to revert themselves. I reported the user only after almost a day had elapsed since their warning, and they still hadn't reverted themselves. To be fair, maybe they didn't read DrKay's warning in time to act; though, both the edit war and aforementioned warning occurred within a short span of time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah., I think requiring someone to revert and taking action simply because no further edits came from the account would be hard to justify as "preventative" (the user has stopped editing; anyone else can revert if needed). Also, in most other cases (not this one here, where a revert would just remove material), requiring someone to revert may require them to add something to an article. In that case, I personally believe that such a requirement would conflict with the Terms of Use: "You are legally responsible for your edits" doesn't work if people are forced to add content against their will. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2A01:CB14:11E1:400:E942:5C64:90DC:CF65 reported by User:NoWikiNoLife (Result: Blocked 1 year)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: This non-login user keeps reverting the bracket (at the very bottom of the page), even though I have asked him not to. Can someone please do something about this user? Thanks.
 * Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why Wikipedia is the way it is. Just like all other systems that slowly get destroyed by its own overbearing administration. Everything has to be done in a uniform way and following exact steps. Some things in life should be simple. I already used the template and provided the most important into. I have no idea what these 'Diffs' are and I don't care to learn. If I did, I would, and would then apply to be an admin myself. Admins are supposed to be helpful and work as mediators between common users and professionals. But in Wikipedia admins are often keyboard warriors who need 'great admiration' and want to be 'respected' just because they are Wikipedia admins. I don't care much for that. I reported a non-login user with a three-day history who is clearly vandalizing a page because they don't understand how brackets in sports works. If you can deal with them - great. And if you refuse to deal with the issue because I clicked on the wrong button in the process, then so be it. Maybe one day, upon reflection, you will realize how very ridiculous all of that is. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Police"
 * "Sir, someone's robbing a house near me and brutalizing the residents"
 * "OK, what's your location?"
 * "Sir, I reported a crime in progress. I have no idea what these 'addresses' are and I don't care to learn. You have my location from caller ID, figure it out. Good-bye!"
 * Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have provided both pages where vandalism occurred and in my comment mentioned the section in question is at the bottom of each page. I have also reported the ID of the perpetrator of this vandalism. I think that is sufficient to take action. The user has since also become abusive with his rude comments (using swear words), which is a further reason to a ban him.. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! NoWikiNoLife (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Thehamid reported by User:Goldenarrow9 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop edit warring you’re vandalising the page"
 * 2)  "His sources are not even genuine"
 * 3)  "Stop edit warring you’re vandalising the page"
 * 4)  "Blatant vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "General note: Not assuming good faith on Talk:Ajuran Sultanate."
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ajuran Sultanate."
 * 4)   "/* May 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Ajuran established in the 13th century */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Ajuran established in the 13th century */ Comment"
 * 3)   "/* Ajuran established in the 13th century */ Reply"

Comments:

Heated argument over the reliability of certain sources. I have asked the user to undo their last edit as it violates 3RR. I had also requested for temporary page protection at Requests for page protection/Increase. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * in the hope that the editor will not resume their disruption and personal attacks after expiration of the block. Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick action. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Cowabunga101 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1224857749 by Err a Parrot (talk) You're the one who's undoing my changes. Besides, "informative" is not a noun so your "rationale" is invalid."
 * 2)  "New edits broke the sequence of events, referred to the FCHR letter to Jones as a "dismissal letter", a number of other problems, please see my talk page"
 * 3)  "Restored mention of insubordination"
 * 4)  "Restored some of the previous wording. Also note the investigation was chiefly carried out by the OIG, the FCHR forwarded her complaint to the OIG. The previous version didn't explain what the FHCR was."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1224545034 by Muboshgu (talk) Absolutely we do, everywhere. Check "Alex Jones", for instance. Also, before the recent changes, the wording was "she was fired (...) which she claimed was retaliation for (...)". We had this wording for about half a year, so I don't understand your reasoning here.."
 * 6)  "2017 charge -> 2019 charge. And yes, the revenge porn charge was dropped, which is insane given that she admitted to sending the nudes herself (but supposedly only to the victim) and hosting the website, according to an affidavit which has been publicly accessible since at least early 2020. It also presents clear evidence tying her to the crime. The only explanation that comes to mind is that she sucked SA Jack Campbell off and he decided to let her go free. Nevertheless, if it's not notable, ok"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1224465535. You changed claimed to alleged (also the purportedly doesn't sound right). Neither "alleged" or "claimed" implies that she presented any evidence, but "alleged" sounds more elevated and serious. I think "claim" is more appropriate, given that her employer had valid and well-documented reasons to fire her, which she tried to deflect from by making unsubstantiated claims. As for the note - I said what I said."
 * 1)  "2017 charge -> 2019 charge. And yes, the revenge porn charge was dropped, which is insane given that she admitted to sending the nudes herself (but supposedly only to the victim) and hosting the website, according to an affidavit which has been publicly accessible since at least early 2020. It also presents clear evidence tying her to the crime. The only explanation that comes to mind is that she sucked SA Jack Campbell off and he decided to let her go free. Nevertheless, if it's not notable, ok"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1224465535. You changed claimed to alleged (also the purportedly doesn't sound right). Neither "alleged" or "claimed" implies that she presented any evidence, but "alleged" sounds more elevated and serious. I think "claim" is more appropriate, given that her employer had valid and well-documented reasons to fire her, which she tried to deflect from by making unsubstantiated claims. As for the note - I said what I said."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) See User talk:Cowabunga101, especially

Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Khirurg reported by User:Illegally (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (none, I warned the user on his comment on my talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk on the article but user has been asked several times to provide explanations and talk, which he has ignored

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

Comments:

The user is involved in several disruptions and edit wars specifically in topics regarding Albania. Based on his contribution history, it seems he is pushing nationalistic Greek agenda on Albanian articles.

You can see multiple reverts and edit warring throughout his history. As seen on these example discussions I picked up: User_talk:Khirurg, Talk:Dhërmi, Talk:Cham_Albanians, Talk:Himar%C3%AB, Talk:Vurg, User_talk:Khirurg, Talk:Greeks_in_Albania, Talk:Origin_of_the_Albanians, and a lot more like this.

User has clearly shown a disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

I also want to note that I've noticed that the user is always supported on the same topics by User:Alexikoua (i.e. participating in the same edit wars & commenting on same discussions), which has made me suspicious of a duplicate account (or "Sockpuppetry" in Wikipedia terms). Either that or they could be a part of a group of people working together on nationalistic interests (look at this reddit discussion 9 years ago where the above users are mentioned).

I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, and I've always been appreciative of editors, but I was concerned recently by the amount of people from other nations controlling the history narrative of different nations on their favour.

Who are these people? They have been editing and reverting on articles about cities and geographical locations of Albania, origins of Albania, Albanian people, Albanian history, notable persons, etc. Isn't it weird that a person from another nation puts so much effort in editing information on all topics of another nation and focuses on including foreign references everywhere? I think Albanian historians would be more qualified for that.

They seem to be old Wikipedia users and seem to know their ways around Wikipedia rules and using that to threaten and intimidate other users. I think that's the opposite of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, open to edit for everyone, free of nationalistic interests, and open to have intellectual discussions instead of edit wars, but they seem to have forgotten that.
 * Reporter indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Bolatio reported by User:BalaM314 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Vandalism, these thai nationalists be desperate... removed a book by James Rodger Brandon to add an ebook by sketchy author Hseham Amrahs (the same book that Bokator was inscribed in the Unesco in 2016 instead of 2022), lakon kbach boran isn't khmer classical dance, cherrypick the bits of Buppha Devi's inteview she proceeded to say that her grandmother removed all Thai influence to adopt the pure Khmer style. In line citations are welcomed the book's very unlikely to describe it as "sensual""
 * 2)  "Vandalism, these thai nationalists be desperate... adding a book by Hseham Amrahs (sketchy author, says in the same book that Bokator was inscribed in the Unesco in 2016 instead of 2022), lakon kbach boran isn't khmer classical dance, cherrypick the bits of Buppha Devi's inteview she proceeded to say that her grandmother removed all Thai influence to adopt the pure Khmer style, wonder how would they know the dancers swinged their hips based on sculptures? In line citations are welcomed"
 * 3)  "Vandalism, these thai nationalists be desperate... adding a book by Mahesh Dutt Sharma (sketchy author, says in the same book that Bokator was inscribed in the Unesco in 2016 instead of 2022), lakon kbach boran isn't khmer classical dance, cherrypick the bits of Buppha Devi's inteview she proceeded to say that her grandmother removed all Thai influence to adopte the pure Khmer style, wonder how would they know the dancers swinged their hips based on sculptures? In line citations are welcomed"
 * 4)  "reverting vandalism, thai nationalists can't just cherry pick what they like lol, there were references sorry not sorry, that's history"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit war with User:Quantplinus, seems to be a content dispute, edit summaries suggest this user has assumed bad faith and made personal attacks 『π』  BalaM314  〘talk〙  16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Merzostin reported by User:Obsidian Soul (Result: Page protected, user partially blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts: Junk (ship) Djong
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (I guess this would count too)

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

Comments:

I am WP:INVOLVED. User's removals and reverts are based on vague claims of "disinformation", "vandalism", and "disruptive edits", of which my changes are definitely not (link, link) apparently motivated by nationalism in complete disregard to the fact that the text he is removing are sourced. He has similarly slapped a vague hoax template on the Djong article. He has engaged in a similar edit war with User:Nitekuzee in the past. OBSIDIAN †  SOUL  17:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This editors have stalked and been reverting all my edits on various pages based on intense nationalism in complete disregard to the fact that the information although reliably sourced was a disinformation, since the information was quotes about Chinese ship but used for Javanese ships, the editors also removed all the template seeking expert assitance on Djong article. Also he admitted he was mistaken about only one revert after proven wrong, but adamant about other reverts plainly because the editors have not check the sources or talk page to see the blatant disinformation Merzostin (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "the information although reliably sourced was a disinformation". That does not make sense.-- OBSIDIAN  †  SOUL  18:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * you literally admitted that you were wrong about the Zhou's quote because you didn't do basic research, that quote was reliably referenced, but it didn't belong on Djong page since it was a description of Chinese ship not Javanese ship as the reference had said Merzostin (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * this user edits were obvious vandalism and wanting to present a cohesive propaganda, this user had also been blocked in the past for engaging in similar disruptive edits before Merzostin (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * sigh. -- OBSIDIAN  †  SOUL  18:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * has fully protected Junk (ship) for a week, and I have partially blocked from continuing to dedicate a large portion of their editing towards edit warring about Djong and Junk (ship).  will need to convince others to implement changes on their behalf using edit partially-blocked, which is less likely to be successful if accusations of "vandalism" and "propaganda" are thrown around. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:KaiWoodBCB reported by User:Remsense (Result: Reporter blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 2)   "/* May 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Result in infobox */ Reply" — thread did not directly involve them, but was about the same subject.

Comments: Kept restoring while discussion was ongoing, and did it four times in 24 hours as opposed to twice by the reported editor. They may be right, but this is not covered by 3RRNO. This issue is a contentious topic (infoboxes) within an article already designated as a contentious topic in the whole (ARBEE), which the article history shows Remsense to have been on about for some time. Their user talk page indicates that they are aware of all contentious topics, and they made the report, so we can presume they were fully aware of the policies and rules around edit warring. Thus they don't have any excuse for it on this article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Tuhinsarkarproti reported by User:Rahio1234 (Result: Already indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Tuhinsarkarproti moved page Draft:Tuhin Sarkar Proti to Tuhin Sarkar Proti over redirect"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Wikipedia:Sandbox."
 * 2)   "ONLY Warning: Vandalism (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Move warring  Rah ' io ' 1234  08:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Editor has been indefinitely blocked by User:Seraphimblade for operating an advertising only account, so this complaint is now moot. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Headtothestripe reported by User:Wikishovel (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision"
 * 2)  "Undid revision"
 * 3)  "Undid revision, it is not improper to list a city or two which is nearby. Many Wikipedia articles have this. You are difficult and uncommunictative."
 * 4)  "Undid revision"
 * 5)  "Undid revision"
 * 6)  "Undid revision, you need consensus"
 * 7)  "STOP, make suggestions on the talk page"
 * 8)  "Undid revision, please take up this topic on the talk section"
 * 9)  "please stop with the deletion of information which pertains, however you are an individual who doesn't see a connection"
 * 10)  "Undid revision, setting poll"
 * 11)  "Undid revision, prv."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Violation of WP:COATRACK: new section"
 * 2)   "/* Violation of WP:COATRACK: Reply"
 * 3)   "/* Violation of WP:COATRACK */ r"
 * 4)   "/* Violation of WP:COATRACK */ r"

Comments:

Editor is a SPA created in March, and nearly all their edits have been to create Abi Carter, and then attempting to recreate it twice following AFD, to the point that it had to be protected admin-only until Carter had won the contest. Strong WP:OWNER issues, with angry posts to the user talk pages of every editor she's reverted, including mine, User:Valjean, User:Manticore, User:Philomathes2357, User:Amakuru, and User:HypeBoy. User:Valjean, I and others have been repeatedly explaining the policy reasons for our edits, but it all bounces off, and warnings about 3RR at their user talk are simply deleted without comment. At Talk:Abi Carter they pointedly refused to answer my questions about COI, and I suspect UPE about an unrelated venue they keep adding to the article, despite reverts by other editors. The account was confirmed to another user in an earlier SPI, but not blocked, on behavioural evidence. Wikishovel (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Nonsense! An admin has already stepped in so ANI isn't necessary. The users that Wikishovel mentions and Wikishovel, themselves are incapable supposedly of being reasonable. Let's go back to when I created the Abi Carter article... No one, of the paltry less than 8 people objecting to the article existing would engage in even slightly substantial discourse. Just as I was right at the time, same now. Further, even the helpful admin who is assisting isn't correct. Almost no one knows where Indio is and at least four of the users I have mentioned can't figure out that it is beneficial even necessary to put that into the article as EVERY news media outlet does. The things that these people argue are kind of absurd.
 * Very obviously Abi Carter has been a busker and she brings it up in discussions about how she became a performer. TB (Tommy Bahama) and Village StreetFest are key places. The golf course may have some relevance as either a place Carter worked or performed or something else.
 * Wikishovel has been a nuisance first in trying to have the Carter article redirected to Season 22 then deleting it. Ask yourself, why would they even want to edit the article now? Is this normal behavior?
 * Two of the editors were acting as a defacto tag team, even if they didn't realize it. Philomathes357 followed Valjean to the Carter article and performed the edit they were pushing for or making themselves. Then each of them denied it or any collusion. It still looks fishy and goes to supporting that this little band of editors isn't really improving the article. They make minor changes and create hullabaloos.
 * Policy is cited, let's take one example where they don't know what is really policy. As I have said Indio is not big, it's not irrational to follow the lead of other media and say it is near Palm Springs or a certain distance from LA. Amakuru is an admin; they're doing a good job in trying to solve some of the disagreements here. To repeat, there aren't many things in dispute. I am saying this tiny number of people are making a big thing out of not much and they won't even really engage in a discussion as to why they could be wrong. Is this fuss over merely three subjects? The couple of venues, the city itself, something similarly minor in addition to those? Seriously? I asked Valjean to list each change they wanted to see implemented or made in the article. Seems like a pretty average request. Then we could have talked about each one or even put up a poll. In truth these people want to be troublemakers, more than likely. Lastly we did agree on a reference system so we were making a little progress. Headtothestripe (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the group of users are predisposed to not using their own talk pages and wanting all communication done on the Carter talk page. Which leans towards they don't really want to make constructive changes. I may add there is a slide in American Idol coverage overall. Very few editors cover the topic here. Notice how the number of performers on the show have fewer and fewer articles. Some people think that AI is less relevant, that doesn't explain the biases here. It's overboard. Headtothestripe (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Wikibear47 reported by User:Tueasy (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

I suspect that @Tueasy has some personal vendetta against me. Please consider this scenario: Today first some random IP instigates an edit war unprovoked and gets banned. Than User:Tueasy comes along and reports me in both SPI and Edit warring noticeboard. Mind you that this is the second time he has reported me into SPI this week. Its almost like I have been stalked and baited. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked Tueasy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:94.73.32.9 reported by User:Fdom5997 (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: User did not use talk page. Just kept reverting

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User did not use talk page. Just kept reverting

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User did not use talk page. Just kept reverting

Comments:


 * Hello, would you mind joining the discussions at Talk:Chibcha language? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Between us and User:94.73.32.9? Fdom5997 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure who "us" refers to as you haven't edited the talk page yet. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. Yeah let’s just go to the talk page. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello user:ToBeFree. I disagree with the blocking, I have participated in the discussion page Talk:Chibcha_language to express my arguments and show that the user Fdom5997 is the one who has vandalized the article. DavidElche (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you very much for describing your concerns at Talk:Chibcha language, which is exactly where a consensus about this issue needs to be found. can address your concerns there. I don't believe "vandalism" (intentional damage) was involved from either side; please avoid making such accusations. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right. I should have written was "altered". DavidElche (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No it was not “vandalism”. He is deliberately mischaracterizing my intentions, and the main source I am using is Gonzàlez (2006). I am only using Saravia (2015) for extra info on the allophones. We should only have *one* section for the phonology. Not a bunch which display all different sources. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Mohhamad Khalid rafsan reported by User:M S Hassan (Result: Both editors blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Redacted II reported by User:Redraiderengineer (Result: Blocked from page for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 19:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Revert of discussion close template (series of edits)
 * 2) 11:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Revert of discussion close and RfC templates and archive time (series of edits)
 * 3) 11:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Revert of archive time that removes RfC template (series of edits)
 * 4) 14:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Revert of RfC template and archive time (series of edits)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 23:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

Redacted II has performed four reverts within a period that slightly exceeds 24 hours in apparent violation of 3RR (outside the 24-hour period) and the spirit of the rule. Redacted II has previously been warned and blocked for edit warring on the SpaceX Starship flight tests article by. This is Redacted II's third report in as many months for this type of violation and ownership-asserting behavior.

Redacted II continues to "not [learn] from a block for edit-warring" regarding SpaceX Starship-related articles, and editors express concerns of civil POV pushing. (Redacted II has previously admitted to this POV on their user page.) Redraiderengineer (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * from page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:Pharaoh of the Wizards (Result: Declined, at ANI, article fully protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There was nothing stable about it."
 * 2)  "Reverted edit by Dowrylauds (talk) to last version by Kashmiri"
 * 3)  "Seek consensus before re-adding this arguably incorrect wording"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1225308392 by Dowrylauds (talk) Take it to Talk before restoring"
 * 5)  "Restored revision 1225192263 by Kashmiri (talk): Don't re-add without discussion: material on two US legislators, material on a local authorty. Don't bump up heading level unnecessarily as it clutters the TOC. Read WP:BRD"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1225190798 by Petextrodon (talk) Removing again per MOS:OVERSECTION"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1225189855 by Petextrodon (talk) you'll re-add the heading once you add content."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * →‎Edit warring on Tamil genocide page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1) reverts by Kashmiri:

Editing warring in Tamil genocide and removed a 3RR warning with an edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kashmiri&diff=prev&oldid=1225204554 Bullshit. Meatpuppetry report coming] Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. It was my mistake as my edits were split between two days in my timezone, on two rather intense days, and I missed the 24h clock. However, I'm also extremely concerned about the multitude of newly registered or newly active accounts suddenly coming to Tamil genocide and reverting to one specific POV version – something I've seen only once before in my 10+ years on wiki. It's very far from normal on Wikipedia and points to some sort of off-wiki coordination (meatpuppetry). This may be taken into account when judging this report. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  21:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding to that – a meatpuppetry report is on its way, most likely tomorrow. There's obvious meatpuppetry going on between certain editors that extends into several other Tamil-related articles and discussions. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  21:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Admins: please be warned about other related discussions at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Sockpuppet investigations/Leed110. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This is at ANI, let's keep it at one venue.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Acroterion they are unrelated this is about edit warring but that report is about personal attack.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then it's best presented there together with the ANI discussion, since the same topics are concerned.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And Ymblanter has fully protected the article to stop the back-and-forth.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:شارستانی reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1225373259 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1225372939 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1225368979 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1225366867 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1225366620 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1225365682 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1225366620 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1225365682 by HistoryofIran (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Addition of non-WP:RS part 2 */"

Comments:
 * Comment from outside party: this user has been edit-warring on the article itself as well, i.e. diffs: 1st (24 May at 12:12 NZST), 2nd (24 May at 12:13 NZST), 3rd (24 May at 12:17 NZST), in addition to the bizarre removal of comments on the article's talk page after HistoryofIran (the other involved editor) tried to engage in discussion with them there. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  04:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Minci2000 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Minci2000 has chosen not to use the talk page.

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

Comments:

It appears the edit war has something to do with Suleyman's mother, which is explained in a well-referenced paragraph. Since Minci2000 has not used the talk page, I can only speculate their reason(s). --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Malik-Al-Hind reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

All edits have something to do with the reported user attempting to insert "India(n)". Please also see this ANI report, they are clearly a meatpuppet, and with all due respect, this would not have happened if they already got blocked for that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:49.3.90.116 reported by User:PhinsUp23 (Result: Blocked 2 years; sockmaster's block extended as well)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:

Suspect this IP is also being used for ban evasion in addition to violating 3RR. See previous reports/block logs regarding User:CodyCruickshank and IPs 220.236.126.177 & 110.175.242.146. Based on actions and confrontational attitude this appears to be the same person, as does 220.236.119.43. Previous attempts to discuss issues on article/user talk pages with this person are usually ignored so I didn't really bother this time, they mostly communicate via edit summaries but don't try and actually discuss their issues further. PhinsUp23 (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So I've just added another diff to this, User:AP 499D25 reverted back to the previous version I gave but this IP has gone in and reverted again anyway rather than start any discussion on the article talk page or their own. PhinsUp23 (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also extended the block on to that length as well. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Bravehm reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Bravehm is also extremely manipulative; I restored sourced info removed by Bravehm, restoring +605 bytes. They then not only revert me, but remove even more sourced info (-1189 bytes), having the nerve to ask me to go to the talk page, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ONUS. I then revert them again, only to get reverted again, but this time they removed even more bytes (-1751), still asking me to "explain myself". --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because Bravehm was not warned about edit-warring, I have given them an opportunity to self-revert. We'll see what they do.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * has self-reverted avoiding a block; however, they are warned that any subsequent reverts may result in a block without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User:JabSaiyaan reported by User:Ankitsalsa14 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
User:JabSaiyaan reported by User:Ankitjazz14 (Result: Page protected) Page: Chibcha language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: 94.73.32.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This list shows the repeated and baseless edits made by the user without engaging in discussions of stating reliable sources.

Diffs of the user's reverts: I had posted factual data on page GangubaiKathiawadi considered authentic as per wikipedia source WP:ICTFSOURCES

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User did not use talk page. Just kept reverting without citing sources or revealing concrete facts. Moreover the user kept stating vague data about authenticity of my sources which is evidently false. I have attempted to discuss, however the user is adamant and non-cooperative

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: The user has been reported for vandalism and given enough warnings as also seen on the talk page. Moreover past history of the user suggests clear cases of edit warring and instances of vandalism on other pages.

Reply: User:Ankitsalsa14 doesn't know Wikipedia guidelines. The user is talking about "repeated and baseless edits made by the user without engaging in discussions" but they themselves did that first. There is a note where they made edits which states "DO NOT REMOVE FIGURES WITHOUT CONSENSUS AT THE TALK PAGE" but they kept making those edits and when reverted they started engaging in edit warring. There's nothing to report here, the user themselves removed one of thier unreliable sources here, There are already enough sources attached to the main page and more reliable, the sources of this user aren't reliable for budget purpose. Same sources has been used for multiple recent Bollywood productions. They are also unnecessarily adding warnings on my talk page instead of discussing, I even replied to them here, but instead of replying back and discussing they want to engage in edit warring. JabSaiyaan (talk)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Félix137792 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Records and developments */ The Early History of God: Yahweh and Other Deities in Ancient Israel - Mark S. Smith, The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel - Mark S. Smith, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel - William G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? - William G. Dever, Biblical History and Israel S Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History - Megan Moore, Brad Kelle"
 * 2)  "/* Records and developments */ The attached source and statement are not accepted by the majority of historians. At most, it would hold its place if it was also pointed out that this is not the consensus of historians at all. According to most historians (see: William G. Dever or Mark S. Smith) Yahweh was already present in the early period and also syncretism happened then."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1225575550 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
 * 4)  "Most scientists don't think so. in fact, it is contrary to the consensus."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Yahwism."

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

Comments:

Plus two reverts by two different Hungarian IPs. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article was semi-protected for one year by .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For two years. It was protected for one year prior, so I doubled it this time around. El_C 13:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Дејан2021 reported by User:DerbyCountyinNZ (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Already reverted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oldest_people&diff=1225582570&oldid=1225385321

User was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. On expiration of block they resumed the edit war. They were then blocked for 1 week. That expired a couple of days ago. They have again resumed the edit war.

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

Comments:


 * That is unfounded and there is no reason to delete that case. I MENTIONED THE SOURCE. That's the violation of Wiki rules, one person keeps canceling my edits for NO reason. For no good reason, the user "Wwew345t" has undone my edits. I did not continue the war with changes and I ask that the issue be resolved.


 * Additional links:


 * 1) my edit, I cited the source and correctly added the person to the list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=1225582570&title=Oldest_people&diffonly=1


 * 2) an edit by "user: Wwew345t" who undid my edit a few hours later without any reason: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=1225628665&title=Oldest_people&diffonly=1


 * He invents reasons and imposes falsehoods, there is no problem with the man's age, his age is validated by an international body that specifically deals in longevity research (Gerontology Research Group), he claims that he should be deleted, because his age was not verified by a profit non-scientific company LongeviQuest (LQ), this kind of behavior and humiliation of a scientific institution is unacceptable, therefore, his age is validated by the GRG, that is enough, it is not the job of LQ fans to express views about the reliability of GRG, in the Wiki rules nowhere it says that GRG is an unreliable source, that is all incorrect, GRG has been used as a primary source for decades without any problems. Дејан2021 (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:Struct (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user is harassing me by repeatedly reverting valid edits with no explanation Struct (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reporter indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you... now we can all move on to something more productive. Moxy 🍁 01:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Waterlover3 reported by User:Loafiewa (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1225753328 by 84.229.97.181 (talk) they dont only have 3 thats just the number of confirmed captures of the gun there could be more but since this site doesnt take hamas statements as factual we had to put it as confirmed 3 and no one brang up egypt. shatayet is a special operation force in the navy doesnt mean it cant be suited for such operations"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1225737732 by Loafiewa (talk) hamas confirmed their operation with the picture of the 3 CZ scorpion EVO 3 in their tunnels"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1225737160 by Scelodrama (talk) if it was published by major news organizations its as good as true stop coping"
 * 4)  "i didnt site hamas i sited al jazeera and MSN"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

4 reverts by this user, which have continued since being warned about 3RR, plus two by the account User:Lemandros, who denies sockpuppetry, but it certainly fits all the signs of a WP:SLEEPER being used for that purpose. The edit also fails WP:V, as the Scorpion isn't mentioned by name in either of the cited sources. Loafiewa (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * like you are any better! you have 3 reverts on my edit on said article Waterlover3 (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)