Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive483

User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

User was one of two editors that breached 3RR on this article yesterday, but unlike the other, FeldmarschallGneisenau has continued reverting today (shortly after the 24 hour period following their previous edits expired) despite being strongly advised to stop. Number  5  7  01:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They are still making reverts, with this edit being in part a repeat of the 22:31, 25 May 2024 one. Number   5  7  02:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:50, 23 May 2024
 * 2) 19:18, 24 May 2024
 * 3) 20:40, 24 May 2024
 * 4) 21:23, 24 May 2024
 * 5) 21:27, 24 May 2024
 * 6) 22:31, 25 May 2024
 * 7) 22:37, 25 May 2024

Comments:

Elections isn't a word in the English language unless there are different types of elections happening on the same day, or happening in different states of a federal country. A parliamentary election in a unitary state is only one election. Calling it "elections" is bad grammar.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Mohammad Umar Ali reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: (First four within 24 hours, last three within 24 hours as well)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * Please see WP:DRN filed yesterday. I make no comment on the discussion here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrator could indefinitely block me as all of this is mine fault only. I apologize to everyone. Mohammad Umar Ali


 * Requesting Daniel Case, Bbb23 and RegentsPark to have a look at this case. PadFoot2008
 * I presume I'm being pinged because I declined a request to protect this page recently. Having reviewed the situation in more depth, I strongly suggest to MuA that he involve himself in the DRN that's been opened and for now drop this article like the hot rock he's done so much to make it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Since Mohammad Umar Ali has apologized above and there is an open DRN case, I think we can let this go (as long as MuA follows Daniel Case's "hot rock" suggestion above). RegentsPark (comment) 16:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was frustrated so I apologized, I didn't meant it. This was my original comment I removed it out of frustration as I told before.  If you would have looked into details you would have known who was right here and whether consensus is even required in this specific scenario. I also learnt that providing reliable sources are less important for Wikipedia articles and a user needs to have consensus regarding adding sourced claims and unsourced claims and random statements of any other user are considered more reliable. Adding failed verification and Incomplete templates   also require consensus wow shocking! This is talk page of the article  and till now I don't know for what the consensus is required as everything has been well explained by me there by citing sources. Multiple users reverting my edit without any reason just shouting "talk page and consensus" by the way to which I replied each and every time with stating reliable sources doesn't matter but I get reported. It can easily be concluded that if multiple users are reverting my edit and I am reverting theirs (as talk page discussion is over as those users don't have any arguments left) I will be the one who will break 3RR even if I don't want and then I get reported, a good strategy isn't it? These many administrators didn't even notice this which surprised me. I faced multiple harassments by User:Rahio1234   (plz read the info here ) who just removed my content and kept quoting the same statement "Please provide WP:RS" doesn't even get warning. Also please close WP:DRN as there is nothing to discuss everything has already been discussed on the article's talk page. If I say Tomorrow is Monday and someone says no you are wrong The next day is Monday, I can't have a discussion on such issue. Lastly, I want any of the administrators to block either me or the user who reported me and disrupted the article. This is not a minor issue, this is a pretty serious one. If the administrators think that I really did any mistake block me please but don't just let the issue go.  Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:46.69.215.187 reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1225789345 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1225789258 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1225788951 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1225788901 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1225788474 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1225788296 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1225787710 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 1225787427 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1225787154 by PhilKnigbt (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 1225786148 by MagicMncheher26 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 1225786085 by MagicMncheher26 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danial Afzal Khan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

11 RR as I write this.  Aloha27  talk  18:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It's an LTA who has been vandalising this page all day with various accounts, including the current one impersonating an admin. Which five seconds of research would've revealed. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * has now been blocked as an LTA. Reverting vandalism is an exception to 3RR. Please re-read the policy. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless. YOU have violated 3RR. I warned you on your talk page. You blanked said warning. That indicates that you indeed, read it. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverting vandalism is an exception to 3RR. Please re-read the policy. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll let the admins here deal with this and make their decision. Good day to you.  Aloha27  talk  18:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ↓ And they have ↓ Please read WP:3RRNO as suggested. Thanks. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but I'll promise to yell at any admin who blocks you. :-) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have requested ECP for that page to hopefully eliminate the disruptive editing.   Aloha27  talk  19:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be worth you adding the AfD pages seen in the latest sock's contribs – Special:Contributions/136.226.53.24 – as the LTA will likely target them again too. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That IP has been blocked for 72 hours.  Aloha27  talk  19:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know – I was the one who reported them to AIV. Special:Contributions/136.226.53.24 provides a handy list of all the targeted AfDs and you've got an easy score here by adding them to your RfPP request. I'm quite surprised how hard it is to get you to understand… well, anything at all… but that's not important right now. 46.69.215.187 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 46.69 is correct. WP:3RRNO allows reverting vandalism. Now, WP:STOPIT discourages this sort of thing, but that's only an essay. 46.69 has done nothing block-worthy, here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No violation. Thanks to User:46.69.215.187 for reverting vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:2001:999:588:4a43:473b:d28b:b4bc:5341 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: /64 blocked for 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]

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

Comments:

Removal of sources replacement with unsoured content. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * by, extended to the /64. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

User:George Awad 1 reported by User:Wikibear47 (Result: Already blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Economy of Pakistan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by George Awad 1 (talk): Unclear"

Comments:

Evidently persistent vandalism, edit warring and disruptive editing. Wikibear47 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Not a 3RR report but a slow moving edit war that is a continuation of a 6 May ANEW report for which they were blocked. Not counting the 4 IP reverts before their account was created, they have made this exact revert 8 times with no attempt at discussion. With the exception of their first edit, the editor has never used any talk page of any kind despite a request to do so and continues to edit war to their preferred version. - Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

User:148.252.146.226 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: 48 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Nazism */ As a historian, corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west as slander to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 2)  "/* Nazism */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west as slander to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 3)  "/* Nazism */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 4)  "/* Streicher in power */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 5)  "/* Fall from power */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 6)  "/* top */Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 7)  "/* Early politics */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 8)  "/* Nazism */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 9)  "/* Rise of Der Stürmer */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 10)  "/* top */Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 11)  "/* Early politics */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 1)  "/* top */Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 2)  "/* Early politics */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."
 * 1)  "/* Early politics */ Corrected the term "Nazi" used by the west to the actual term "National Socialist" used by Germany to better reflect actual history."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring over the name "Nazi". StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

User:MainBody reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 26 May 2024, 11:20. "rv disruptive removal of well-sourced content"
 * 2) 26 May 2024, around 11:30
 * 3) 27 May 2024, around 4:30
 * 4) 28 May 2024, 03:22 "Ref tag problem fixed. Disruptive removal of well-sourced content and quote, in the name of "edit", reverted"

The terms "unratified" and "unequal treaty" can be seen to have been reinstated repeatedly, among other changes.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #New edits to the lead, #More out of date commentary

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

Comments:

The editor has started making a series of edits to the main page on 22 May 2024, some of which I regard as WP:POV. Shows no effort to seek WP:CONSENSUS, no effort to engage on the talk page, or even state any rationales in the edit summaries. It appears that this will go on forever unless the editor is suitably warned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If it were just this, I might have settled for just warning or "no violation". But this editor's talk page show they have been warned before, more than once, as well as other evidence that their editing has left something to be desired. So, it's time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User:EternalKhosrow reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User hasn't even written a edit summary let alone in a talk page (their own is full of warnings). They just keep non-stop edit warring through addition of unsourced info. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bbb23! HistoryofIran (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Auntsamaru reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: No violation; refer to SPI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1226236115 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* References */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1226182421 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1226182421 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1226182421 by Untamed1910 (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit Warring User:Auntsamaru */ new section"

Comments:

I don't think this user is here to contribute to wikipedia and i believe this user is an sock puppet of User:Prince_Of_Roblox Untamed1910 (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And if you think this is a sock puppet, this might be better handled at SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added Auntsamaru to the open report at SPI. I almost blocked them on my own, but I'll wait a little to see what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Excelsiorsbanjo reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Page fully protected for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2024-05-25T15:41:20
 * 2) 2024-05-24T14:40:49‎
 * 3) 2024-05-24T02:29:32‎
 * 4) 2024-05-23T02:59:49
 * 5) 2024-05-22T06:02:36
 * 6) 2024-05-17T03:01:14
 * 7) 2024-02-26T14:37:18
 * 8) 2024-02-22T21:29:44
 * 9) 2024-02-16T05:23:14
 * 10) 2024-02-09T20:58:07
 * 11) 2024-01-30T08:35:07‎
 * 12) 2024-01-10T05:46:44

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2024-05-24T15:46:52‎ (which they removed shortly thereafter with the edit summary ) had previously warned them of 3RR in 2019 as well, which they acknowledged).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2024-05-25T16:39:08

Comments:


 * Excelsiorsbanjo has been very combative on the talk page, misunderstanding and misrepresenting what constitutes consensus, and generally being unwilling to reconsider their position and edit warring over a long period to enforce their preferred version of the article. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to add a little more context, in the diffs above they've reverted three different editors: myself, and an IP . —Locke Cole • t • c 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In full for a week. As the reported user has suggested themselves, we need more formal consensus here on the question of whether the flag is still official or not. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case What...? We have a secondary source that states the flag was "decommissioned", there are no sources since then stating the flag is current or in use. There was some detective work being done, but all of that is WP:OR and even if it panned out, isn't something we can use to make an edit here. I'm struggling to understand why protection was used here when there's a clear protracted edit war with Excelsiorsbanjo being the only person to constantly re-add the flag over the objections of multiple editors. This really needs to be a block. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know this edit is 10 weeks old, but I have a lot of respect for that editor and I think there he states the point that does not appear to have been adequately addressed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * SounderBruce is not Excelsiorsbanjo. It's not clear to me that SounderBruce noticed the article Leif One linked to that stated the old flag had been decommissioned, it feels like that got lost amongst the original research that was going on in droves. The flag is already included later in the article, and if our reliable secondary sources say the flag is decommissioned, there's no need for it to be in the infobox. Certainly no consensus to include it has ever really existed beyond WP:WEAKSILENCE, so little has been proffered to justify a protracted edit war by one single editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, so an editor can engage in a protracted edit war for months constituting 12 reverts against three other unique editors, and the behavior is addressed by protecting the article and stating ? The "reported user" hasn't suggested that as far as I can tell (beyond bludgeoning the discussion with the claim of a "consensus" that appears to consist of themselves and the uploader who hasn't opined whatsoever in the discussion nor edited the article since adding the image), meanwhile no less than four editors have either rejected the edit this editor is reverting to on the talk page or said they need more sourcing to validate that it is correct. WP:ONUS is unambiguous on this point: . We don't engage in discussion with edit warriors who to date have presented zero sources (Excelsiorsbanjo tried to wave away the discussion initially by stating ) and simply tried to bully their way through the conversation.
 * Proecting the page is rewarding bad behavior and punishing the good faith discussion that took place on the talk page. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The "good faith discussion" on the talk page never once surfaced this much-discussed newspaper report that the flag had been decommissioned. Without that I can't see any basis for removing the flag. I chose full protection, in the hope that a consensus could be reached if more editors got involved, because the only other option IMO would have to block both EB and you at least from the page for some time because you were both edit warring. Since you have been contributing to Wikipedia almost as long as I have without ever getting blocked, and are a valued member of the community, I thought you might appreciate this. I see now that judgement was a mistake. So, I will offer you and a compromise: if you both consent to being blocked from the article and the talk page for a month, I will lift the protection and let other editors deal with the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case I guess this early reply in January is just my imagination?
 * My brother in Christ, in the span of seven days I reverted four times. Excelsiorsbanjo reverted six times (against two different editors). I get that invoking WP:BOOMERANG is fun and all, but I warned Excelsiorsbanjo (prior to realizing they'd already been warned five years ago), reverted one final time, and came here after it became clear this was not going to stop. I've provided reasons and sources for my statements, while Excelsiorsbanjo has just tried to wave away any argument against inclusion and remained consistent in claiming that just their side (which *counts on fingers* is one person, Excelsiorsbanjo) has somehow achieved consensus... I've contributed significantly to this project over nearly twenty years. Excelsiorsbanjo has made less than 300 edits and appears to have spent the last five years learning how to not collaborate or understand how this project works. We are not the same.
 * If you can read this in that discussion and take away that Excelsiorsbanjo is somehow a shining example of an editor or even equal to me in any way, then you're high. Only one of us threatened to revert without end here, and it wasn't me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I figured you'd invoke this old brief. It says "commissioners have decided to decommission that version". That only proves that they, at that time, intended to. It does not prove that they actually held the vote that that language suggests would be necessary, and the fact that no one seems to have yet found a record that such a vote was held means we cannot say with certainty that the flag was decommissioned (especially given that it seems, also, that the promised contest for a new flag design was never held, either). To claim those words as incontrovertible proof that the flag was decommissioned is writing a check they can't possibly cash. It would be like me saying I had decided to block you for edit warring, but without anything in the block log proving that I did. That could not be taken to mean I had blocked you. Fully protecting a page is never, repeat never, any reflection or judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the version protected. It is a message to the editors involved that they need to cool this down and discuss as they have failed at maintaining the status quo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case The text says . It doesn't say,  or some variation of that.  is the . My understanding is that prior to that flag, the county didn't have any flag whatsoever, so it stands to reason that "no flag" is a possibility. Usually we defer to secondary sources, especially in situations like this where no other sources have been provided to refute the "decommissioned" status. It's kind of baffling to see you wanting something official when we typically avoid official records (just look at how biographies handle birthdates, or how we discourage using press releases for announcements over secondary source coverage of those topics, etc). Regardless, making assumptions about whether they actually decommissioned it or not is original research. You're supplanting what a reliable secondary source says with what you think they meant instead of taking the words plainly. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An official record of the vote on the commissioners' website or in an offline archive where it is published and cited to the extent that verification is possible would be, contrary to the popular perception reflected in your post, an acceptable source for this as it would not require interpretation. Per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Unfortunately rulemaking by assumption has led to that being interpreted to bar the use of primary sources altogether, which is an unfortunate misunderstanding. I do have an idea for how we can resolve this to (I hope) everyone's satisfaction. Some people on the talk page have mentioned getting in touch with the county to see if they can find any records regarding the vote on the flag in their archives. I mean, they should have it if it were voted on ... if you keep no other public records of a body's actions on file this long, you keep meeting minutes. Of course I don't know how long they'd be required to keep them, and given Washington's reputation for having such loophole-ridden sunshine laws, I might not be optimistic. Now, it's one thing if a bunch of Wikipedia editors ask for this. It's another if the local media does—it would turn up the heat on the people at the archives. Not that I think they'd be delaying on purpose or anything, but knowing how this works I can tell you that when they know the media's making the request (OK, I know, in a sense we are the media, but not like, say, the Spokesman-Review is) it gets a higher priority. So, we should contact the S-R and suggest this as a story they should assign someone to cover. It wouldn't require many resources on their part (a not-inconsiderable issue given the current besieged state of local newspapers) and I can't imagine any way it could be argued that this would not be a story, especially given the recent effort to redesign the city's flag. I am willing to reach out to the newspaper myself if desired, given my own distant-past experience in journalism. The end product of all this would be an unimpeachably reliable secondary source on this (and maybe the embarrassed county commissioners hastily voting to decommission the flag if it were found that they hadn't already). And it might make a good Signpost story, too. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case I get the argument around some forms of primary sources, but this is precisely why we use secondary sources: you're debating whether or not the reliable secondary source was accurate in stating the flag was decommissioned. If we had county commissioner minutes stating it was decommissioned, but then someone said it was still in use in Olympia, we'd have people going back and forth about that.
 * I did start a straw poll on the talk page, debated turning it into an RFC, but if you wish to pursue getting them to state something publicly about it, I'm all for that as well. FWIW, I did some archive.org spelunking on prior versions of spokanecounty.org and it appears they had minutes/agendas but because the current live-site only goes back to 2012-2013, it's really hard to search (at least that I've found so far) to see if maybe this hasn't actually already been publicly stated from a primary source. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel CaseThe Spokane County flag is a relic of the past. The documentation of its origin and its abandonment are on the Talk page. The flag was a result of the fervor around the Centennial celebration of the state. Every county in the state designed a flag. Concerning the origin of the flag, of that too there is no legal record. The design contest, statewide, was sponsored by a tent and awning company. To quibble points, the is no legal origin for the flags existence that has been found, as there is no legal source for its decommissioning, only the published article where a county official states it will be decommissioned. The fact that the flag was a part of history is still represented on the Wikipedia page. The recognition does not belong in the infobox, and it is cited further down in a section about the history. I have no objection to the page being locked from editing, but please lock it so that it is not at the top of the page. The County only uses a logo, not a flag, I asked the office personally. The fact that a flag ever existed is an obscure fact that nearly everyone is not aware of. I would estimate that 99.9999% of people do not know the flag ever existed. Please relegate the flag to history, it is not a current symbol of Spokane County. Leif One (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not consider one short unsigned newspaper article in which county commissioners promise to decommission the flag and sponsor a contest to create a new one to sufficiently establish that the flag was either a) decommissioned or b) never commissioned. You may want it to, but your emotional pleading here has little to do with policy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Further replies should occur at Talk:Spokane County, Washington, not here.

User:Jack4576 reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  But, following this warning  and my request they self revert, they did self revert a few hours later  so this was not a 3RR breach
 * 5)  Returned to edit warring once the 24 hour period elapsed
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: followed by RfC:. The RfC, started by Jack4576, is ongoing.

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

Comments:

The initial 3RR breach was corrected after I pointed this out, so my view is there is not a 3RR breach. However, to return to the edit warring as soon as the time expired, when Jack has started an RfC on the issue, is still classic edit warring. They persistently claim that their wording has a consensus, but that is clearly not the case in the previous discussion, nor (yet) in the RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please note the response to my notice on Jack's talk page. As Jack is unable to post here, it would only be fair to take account of their response there. I dispute the count though, which seems to keep changing. I also now notice that this is not the first time that their interpretation of consensus has been an issue on this page. See also User talk:Jack4576. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps as the previously blocking admin, could take a look at this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To me the mere claim of "weasel words" without specifics as to what those words are is an overreach for justifying the reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * edit warring while seemingly not understanding that it is edit warring is a recurring issue that the block log shows is not likely to be resolved with timed blocks. I have no objection to an unblock if the editor can demonstrate a genuine understanding of these issues. Aoidh (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Mengmas12 reported by User:Hawkeye7 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (reverted by FlightTime "Better the way it was")
 * 2)  (reverted by TJRC "Take it to talk; (note editor is pushing the same edit on Buzz Aldrin, and similarly not engaging on talk"
 * 3)  (reverted by FlightTime "Please seek consensus on the talk page")
 * 4)

Although not violating the letter of WP:3RR, as edits spread over many days and two articles, this is become an edit-warring campaign.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:



Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [ Multiple attempts.

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

Comments:


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Albertatiran reported by User:Shadowwarrior8 (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Here are some of the diffs of user's edit-warring over the past 2 days: Although Albertatiran did not perform more than three reverts within 24 hrs, the user has been engaging in repetitive disruptive reverts spread at the minimum over more than 1 day. This behaviour has become an edit-warring campaign since the user has explicitly ignored public warnings and refused to discuss in the talk page. [NOTE: There has been several more edit warring attempts/disruptive edits in the page by Albertatiran after the resolution of a dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard on 20 May 2024. (see link in the notice board archive Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 246) The dispute was moderated by Robert Mcclenon and was closed after Albertatiran's misbehaviour which sabotaged the discussion process.] Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:     Multiple attempts. Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) (disruptive edits by Albertatiran, which was reverted by me)
 * 2) (disruptive edits continued by Albertatiran despite no consensus in the talk page)
 * 3) (reverted by Albertatiran after not even bothering to respond in the talk page)
 * 4) (reverted by Albertatiran after ignoring two editwarring alerts and warning to take it to the talk page)
 * 1) (warning at user talk page)
 * 2) (warning in edit summary)
 * Both editors are edit warring; going to three reverts and stopping to avoid violating 3RR is still edit warring, and this back and forth edit warring has been ongoing since April. Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed issues raised by M.Bitton"
 * 2)  "Revert unexplained deletion"
 * 3)  "Sorry  The meaning has not been changed"
 * 4)  "/* Usage by Christians */  Allah, meaning "God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ""
 * 5)  "/* Usage by Christians */  Rabb"
 * 1)  "/* Usage by Christians */  Rabb"

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

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

Comments:

Please note that their first edit is a revert of this edit (they restored the exact unsourced sentence that was removed by an editor 3 days earlier). They also ignored the talk page and the request to refrain from edit warring, and falsely claimed in their fourth revert to have "fixed the issues that I raised". M.Bitton (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I added a Wikilink and a source to rectify a 'unsourced' problem raised by M.Britton. Following M.Britton's further objection I removed the entire paragraph.
 * Following M.Britton further requests - I again modified the article section.
 * I believe it conforms to all Wikipedia standards Kelator (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Joshdoubleu1 reported by User:U-Mos (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Edit warring of same information also apparent at Eleventh Doctor and The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe, and other material at The Power of the Doctor, Heaven Sent (Doctor Who) and numerous other articles in a 3-day period. Other reversions undone by, and , talk page warning issued by. U-Mos (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @U-Mos it looks like you mistyped the user under "User being reported" – should be . Irltoad (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, corrected! U-Mos (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Ergzay reported by User:Rahio1234 (Result: Reporter 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:

User readded edit.  Rah ' io ' 1234  10:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Rahio1234 Seems to be repeatedly trying to prevent the normal use of the wikipedia sandbox by reverting any changes made to it. Please give them a warning and instructions on proper use of the wikipedia sandbox. They also have extreme english difficulty as they could not explain why they kept reverting any changes made to the sandbox. Ergzay (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I gave them a warning on their talk page about edit warring, but they promptly removed it:
 * See edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rahio1234&diff=prev&oldid=1226549774 Ergzay (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have cleared out my talk page of this junk that was added by rahio1234, to see it as it was before the removal see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergzay&oldid=1226549960 Ergzay (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ergzay i ask the Bbb23.  Rah ' io ' 1234  10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is "the Bbb23"? Ergzay (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This admin.  Rah ' io ' 1234  10:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you asked this admin how to use the sandbox? Or do you mean you asked the admin on if I was misusing the sandbox? Ergzay (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll also mention the two people who have blocked you previously @331dot and @Drmies. Ergzay (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * , the Wikipedia sandbox has instructions on how it may be used and a list of things it cannot be used for (material that is "promotional, copyrighted, offensive, or libelous"). Are you claiming that is posting material that falls into that list?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Ok.  Rah ' io ' 1234  13:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer. This report is an abuse of process, which is probably not intentional but rather demonstrates incompetence both in the bringing of it and how you've handled it after it was brought. You are therefore warned that any continuation of this kind of disruptive conduct will result in a block without any additional notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Can you do something more than a warning? He's been blocked several times before for other things. Ergzay (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 The only thing I posted was a copy paste of a talk page that I was trying to figure out why the build-in "Reply" button didn't work and just gave errors. Rahio1234 immediately came along and started repeatedly reverting my changes in the middle of my testing and then sending me repeated automated warnings via Twinkle when I ignored him and continued editing. Ergzay (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the Wikipedia sandbox may be reset at any time by any editor and is frequently reset automatically by a bot. I suggest you use your own sandbox if you want the material to remain for you to work on and review.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Thank you. Still user @Ergzay was not edit this wikipedia namespace  Rah ' io ' 1234  13:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're trying to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 He thinks you're telling me off about how I was using sandbox. Also, for the record, I wasn't trying to make the sandbox stick around. He would literally revert my changes less than a minute after I made them, over and over again. Just look at the edit log. I really think something more than a warning should be given. Ergzay (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Also he's still repeatedly resetting other people's test pages every chance he gets on the sandbox. See the additional people complaining on his talk page. I'd prefer we didn't have to create another ANI entry for this subject. Ergzay (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Or-Shalem reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Page extended-confirmed protected, user partially blocked for 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I removed the poor sources and added some better ones. I read through all the articles. Nothing here justifies calling the company "Israeli." Even saying it was founded by an Israeli couple is dubious as none of the articles here even mention that Carmen is Israeli. We don't know if she is. The current info is objective and matter-of-fact, as supported by all sources. Do not change until admin comes."
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by M.Bitton (talk): Because it's subjective"
 * 3)  "infobox fixed. neutral info restored. wait til admin gets here"
 * 4)  "Restored revision 1226615469 by Or-Shalem (talk): Can you wait for the admin you contacted to moderate this discussion, please? I don't instants why you are so desperate to force an inference in the opener"
 * 5)  "Actually the sources linking the company to New York City is not acceptable per Wikipedia standards. The sources don't claim it was founded in Tel Aviv, nor Montreal. And once again, calling it an "Israeli company" is your interpretation."
 * 6)  "Reverted 1 edit by IvanScrooge98 (talk): Man stop edit warring. Do NOT revert this again until we resolve this in the talk page. You are doing this in bad faith."
 * 7)  "This is indesputable. What you had before wasn't."
 * 8)  "Reverted 1 edit by IvanScrooge98 (talk): Edit warrior. Stop. This is not a constructive edit, and just because it is sourced does not make it acceptable. This is bad faith and does not paint the full picture of the company."
 * 9)  "Restored revision 1226519945 by Or-Shalem (talk): Edit warriors"
 * 10)  "I did look at the talk page. It's still a dubious claim, given what the sources are stating. This is not objective. Undid revision 1226475555 by 20WattSphere (talk)"
 * 11)  "there i hope this is an acceptable compromise for you. i contributed to the talk page for your convenience. I don't personally like the way the sentence I edited is worded "Israeli then-husband" is weird, but it's less objectionable then what was there before."
 * 1)  "This is indesputable. What you had before wasn't."
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by IvanScrooge98 (talk): Edit warrior. Stop. This is not a constructive edit, and just because it is sourced does not make it acceptable. This is bad faith and does not paint the full picture of the company."
 * 3)  "Restored revision 1226519945 by Or-Shalem (talk): Edit warriors"
 * 4)  "I did look at the talk page. It's still a dubious claim, given what the sources are stating. This is not objective. Undid revision 1226475555 by 20WattSphere (talk)"
 * 5)  "there i hope this is an acceptable compromise for you. i contributed to the talk page for your convenience. I don't personally like the way the sentence I edited is worded "Israeli then-husband" is weird, but it's less objectionable then what was there before."
 * 1)  "I did look at the talk page. It's still a dubious claim, given what the sources are stating. This is not objective. Undid revision 1226475555 by 20WattSphere (talk)"
 * 2)  "there i hope this is an acceptable compromise for you. i contributed to the talk page for your convenience. I don't personally like the way the sentence I edited is worded "Israeli then-husband" is weird, but it's less objectionable then what was there before."
 * 1)  "there i hope this is an acceptable compromise for you. i contributed to the talk page for your convenience. I don't personally like the way the sentence I edited is worded "Israeli then-husband" is weird, but it's less objectionable then what was there before."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User_talk:Or-Shalem
 * 2) User_talk:Or-Shalem
 * 3) Talk:Moroccanoil

Comments:
 * Please note that parts of the article that are edit warring on fall under the WP:ARBPIA restrictions (they have been made aware of this). M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:George Voinescu reported by User:CanonNi (Result: Blocked for 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1226852838 by CanonNi (talk)If you violate the revert rule, you break the wikipedia rules. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect."
 * 2)  "If you violate the revert rule, you break the wikipedia rules. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect."
 * 3)  "If you violate the revert rule, you break the wikipedia rules. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1226850514 by Theroadislong (talk)Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if  the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates (UV 0.1.5)"

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

Comments:

COI issues again. Bringing up this issue to a noticeboard for the third time, after COIN and ANI both failed. SPA removing the autobiography tag, possible sock of.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * CanonNi, If you violate the revert rule, you break the wikipedia rules. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect. Stop vandalizing the pages and good faith contributions of other users. Stop manipulating administrators with false presumptions and complaints. You didn't respect my edits. I justified why I removed the tag. I acted according to the existing rules. George Voinescu (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have a clear COI, and the issue is far from resolved. I didn't "violate the revert rule", you did, and that's why we're here.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, administrators! Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. I already checked the talk page. The major contributions come from a neutral male user from the city of Oradea (ForTupan). He has a name similar to the subject of the article (Maria-Ana Tupan), but has no personal connection to it. The article has been improved, the tone is neutral, balanced. The information has credible sources. The problem is different: The users "CanoNi" and "Theroadislong" have made a common front and repeatedly violate the rules of wikipedia. I ask that my actions and edits be respected. I made constructive changes, removed the article's problems, brought sources and information. After all this, I deleted the tags and justified my action. But it seems that they have a personal problem with the subject of the article and have a personal battle with thim in the discussions. These fights of theirs disrupt wikipedia. They take personal revenge on an article, to hit on the subject of the article. They use their Wikipedia functions to commit abuse. George Voinescu (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not this again...   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Warning to administrators: the user Melcous makes a common front with The users "CanoNi" and "Theroadislong". The user Melcous deleted information from the article, saying that they had no sources, then tagged the page. It is bad intention. Now he came back and put another tag, to makes a common front with The users "CanoNi" and "Theroadislong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Voinescu (talk • contribs) 07:59, June 2, 2024 (UTC)
 * Fifth revert here . Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * message to administrators. The users "CanoNi", "Theroadislong" and "Melcous" relabel the page one by one, to get my suspension. They want to shut my mouth for good, to vandalize that article without being disturbed. If you want to suspend me, please do so. I wanted you, the administrators, to see how these 3 users vandalize a page and take revenge on the subject of the article George Voinescu (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Kashmiri reported by User:2A04:4A43:4FCF:D943:D89A:4387:EBF1:C398 (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * /64 range of reporter blocked by for 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2.26.151.114 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked from article for one month and alerted to CTOPS)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop removing cited content. This article is about Cushitic ethnic groups and where they inhabit. I see what you’re doing here"
 * 2)  "If we’re not going to use Somali Peninsula then this should not be removed either"
 * 3)  "This is valid too"
 * 4)  "Talk page. Stop removing cited sources. Somalis are the most prominent Cushitic ethnic group out of all the ethnic group in this article. There is a whole nation named after Somalia. The Notability policy fully supports this too. You kept on removing this content the other day stating it was unsourced and now you don’t find it relevant? The academic sources are there"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cushitic-speaking people."
 * 2)   "/* June 2024 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Cushitic-speaking_peoples.

Comments:

The IP editor has been edit-warring about this even though there is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Cushitic-speaking peoples about their proposed additions. They also accuse other editors who disagree with their POV of Anti-Somali sentiment which reinforces the impression that they are not willing to contribute in a collaborative way. Austronesier (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some level of administrative action is needed: probably a page ban. The back-&-forths have been going on for twelve days now. The IP editor has only engaged others on the Talk page when their edits have been reverted, and has been unwilling to accept that others are engaging in good faith. At this point, I think a resolution through discussion is unlikely. Pathawi (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * from the article. Since they had not been alerted to it being in a contentious topic area (HORN), I have also done that as well as put a CTOPS notice on the article talk page. For these reasons this will be a regular administrative action that can be appealed through the usual process and reversed by any other admin. Should this user attempt to evade this block, or continue this behavior after it expires, CTOPS should be invoked. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is so absurd it’s almost funny. The article is about Cushitic ethnic groups and where they reside. By going through the conversations on the talkpage you’ll see it, even the edit summaries. It’s so hypocritical how the dispute went from “unsourced” to “irrelevant” when the sources were brought. @Cookiemonster1618 😂😂😂 2.26.151.114 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is why you were blocked because your replies indicate that your ignorant of wikipedia's editing policies, despite multiple times me explaining it to you, that your edits are not relevant to this article. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Somalis are not relevant to an article about Cushitic ethnic groups? Visit these pages and learn about Somali DNA Cushitic ancestry & Haplogroup E-M215. Have a look at the map of where Cushitic ethnic groups are concentrated aswell please. Somalis are definitely not irrelevant. I assure you. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the content of your edits, and everything to do with how you made them. When something is under discussion at the talk page, and you know you're right and the other user or users are obtuse and/or dumber than a wet rock, you leave the text in the article alone until the discussion is resolved, even if that text being in the article keeps you from sleeping well. BTW, can we assume from your continued presence here that this declaration of yours is no longer operative? Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2804:D4B:9A7F:9900:39E8:697:C07B:C115 reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
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:


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:IOHANNVSVERVS reported by User:Maradakia (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)
Page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:There_was_no_such_thing_as_Palestinians

'''User being reported:/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IOHANNVSVERVS

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I am new to trying to contribute to Wikipedia discussions and am finding it very confusing. I noticed today an article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_was_no_such_thing_as_Palestinians ) that has it's main article page locked, being a contentious topic, but which only presents a narrow and heavily biased and misleading view, without respect for the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. I am unaware as a new contributor to what process might normally be involved in seeking to redress issues on Wikipedia, especially given that the main page is locked, but noticing a Talk page, it seemed the appropriate location to make a request for someone to edit the article, and I was not the first to comment on that Talk page noticing a lack of neutrality and the presence of a strong bias in the article. I commented on the Talk page attempting to raise my concern with the lack of a NPOV, with specifics. User IOHANNVSVERVS deleted my comment. I tried to put my request to correct the lack of NPOV back on the Talk page and added the comment explaining why saying: "The request on the Talk page associated with this article, seeking to address the required Neutral Point of View criteria, was was deleted by someone. Since the issue of lack of neutrality has not been addressed the request for correction is being un-deleted. undo Tag: Reverted". Afterwards I also saw a comment on the Talk page where someone mentioned an important and missing quotation which was responded to as though it wasn't relevant so I commented with the full quotation and a link to its original source, discussed its relevance to the article and contributed further examples of quotations that might address the bias of the article and lend it more fairness and neutrality. The result was to have my comment on that Talk discussion also deleted by IOHANNVSVERVS who then deleted/reverted my comments on the Talk page twice more in the span of a couple of hours, despite my asking them to stop doing so, as well as sending them the edit warring warning on their user talk page. I also noticed in looking at the user talk page of IOHANNVSVERVS that there are several other instances where issues arose with this user contributing to anti-Israel and anti-Jewish discussions specifically, which begins to look like a pattern of using Wikipedia as a weaponized propaganda platform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IOHANNVSVERVS And additionally that the history on this user's talk page shows several other warnings about revisions. Before finishing trying to enter this complaint my edit from the Talk page was again reverted. The comment on the reversion suggests that it's not edit warring because as a new user I am only allowed to make edit requests, but that is exactly what my comment was that has now been deleted 4 times. I was requesting edit to address the lack of a neutral point of view. This Wikipedia article is serving as propaganda that shows only one point of view and both the absence of differing views and contempt for disagreement.


 * Did you read the edit summaries by IOHANNVSVERVS, Sean.hoyland, and LilianaUwU, all of whom reverted you? They explained it quite clearly, and there is a note on the talk page further explaining it: this article is under arbitration enforcement as it's a contentious topic. Consequently you need to be extended-confirmed to make talk page comments (or edit the article). Please see the notice on the talk page for more information. — Czello (music) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Gulzarifchawjoan reported by User:Aintabli (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
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:
 * 1)  "In Kurdish"
 * 2)  "Takab"
 * 3)  "Takab In Kurdish"
 * 4)  "Takab"
 * 5)  "Takab In Kurdish"
 * 6)  "Takab In Kurdish"
 * 7)  "Takab In Kurdish"
 * 1)  "Takab In Kurdish"
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring."

Comments:

Gulzarif has also edit-warred on other pages such as Dehgolan, Shahin Dezh, Barya Khan, and so on. The edit-warring actually goes further back as the IPs who have made the exact same edits on these pages belong to the same user. Despite numerous warnings from multiple users, they have not attempted to discuss or provide sources for their additions. Aintabli (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Mypthegoat reported by User:Left guide (Result: Blocked indefinitely after an ignored 48-hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Original addition
 * 2) 1st revert
 * 3) 2nd revert
 * 4) 3rd revert
 * 5) 4th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This type of edit has been the subject of editorial controversy across multiple related articles in the NBA project, so there is open ongoing discussion at WT:NBA to resolve the content dispute, which I mentioned in both my edit summary and the user's talk page.

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

Comments:

User continues to edit-war in the NBA Conference Finals MVP award into the infobox even though they have been reverted by a total of three different editors. Left guide (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Then don’t revert the edit I made what’s so hard to not understand. I already made my explanation. The player has won the Conference Finals MVP and award should be included in Career Awards and Achievements part. I checked the talk page and consensus been saying yes it should be included too. Jaylen Brown has already that award in their bio too. I mean there’s a sentence which says for Luka Doncic in his wiki page that he won the award yesterday but we can’t show it on his career awards part. Make it make sense. Mypthegoat (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

or any other admin, can this be reviewed again for a possible second block? The user fresh off their first block has immediately returned to restoring the same exact edit they were blocked for edit-warring over. Left guide (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not even an edit summary from them either. It doesn't seem they understand edit warring yet. —Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the notification, . ✅.
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to have them request an unblock, given the other warnings on their page. —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:103.156.142.125 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result:IP blocked for 24 hours.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Movies */ StephenMacky1 Edit war may be from your side think again. Please don't consider anything personal. But whatsoever change is needed. Adipurush will not have any place in The Great Ramayana page. I have provided several links before too but none considered. I request you to remove Adipurush from this list."
 * 2)  "Undo changes. I request "StephenMacky1", "Joshua Jonathan", "NXcrypto" to not make any changes further here as this movie is not at all related to The Great Ramayana. Ref: "https://www.rediff.com/movies/review/adipurush-is-not-ramayan/20230620.htm""
 * 3)  "/* Movies */ आदिपुरुष महान रामायण का हिस्सा नहीं है। आदिपुरुष ने महान रामायण और हिंदू धर्म का मज़ाक उड़ाया है। आदिपुरुष ने बहुत विवाद पैदा किया है और हिंदू लोगों की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाई है। Person holding indian citizenship can make changes to this article. I suppose some outside the indian region are making undo changes on this article. Kindly refer original Ramayana with research on the topic whether Adipurush to be considered as a part of Ramayana or not. Adipurush is not a part of Ramayana"
 * 4)  "/* Movies */  आदिपुरुष महान रामायण का हिस्सा नहीं है। आदिपुरुष ने महान रामायण और हिंदू धर्म का मज़ाक उड़ाया है। आदिपुरुष ने बहुत विवाद पैदा किया है और हिंदू लोगों की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाई है।"
 * 5)  "/* Movies */ Adipurush is a controversial film in India region. And it is not a part of Ramayana. I kindly request the authorities to remove this name from the list."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor has made more than three reverts by now, despite being reverted by multiple editors. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:YZDMAC reported by User:Woodensuperman (Result: Sock 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:

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

Comments:

User has continually been reverting removal of flags in navboxes (which go against MOS:FLAG) by myself and others on this and other pages, pretty much the only thing they have done since they joined. -- wooden superman  14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Look. Wooden Superman you have absolutely no right to remove the flags on Foreign relations template. The flags help people identify a specific country. Mr. WoodenSuperman has no clue what he is talking about. Period. YZDMAC (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE, the countries are identified by the name of the country, not the flag. -- wooden superman  14:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t explain why they are on Foreign relations templates. On Foreign relations they are easy to identify. So you don’t know what you are talking about Wooden Superman. That’s it for now. YZDMAC (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't be in navboxes, per MOS:FLAG, WP:NAVDECOR, etc., etc. That is why myself and other editors have removed them. -- wooden  superman  14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Has no interest in working collaboratively . Wikipedia not for them. Moxy 🍁 15:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:Glide08 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

FeldmarschallGneisenau has already been reported and suspended for a week for edit-warring in this article. The target of the edit-warring is the vote figures; he removed them from the Infobox persistently, citing the fact they exceeded the adult population of Poland as a reason, while ignoring the fact that the electoral system used at the time is multiple non-transferable vote, a system which allowed a voter to have more than one vote.


 * Revision as of 01:37, May 26, 2024, before the suspension, where the vote figures were removed from the infobox
 * Revision as of 13:23, June 3, 2024, after the suspension, where the vote figures were removed from the infobox

Comments:

The edit war was over the formatting of the lede. I conceded that. My block over that has expired. It did not refer to reverting your changes in the infobox. And the WP is clear: any unsourced statements may be removed by editors at will. I am following Wikipedia Policy.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Out of the seven reverts listed in the initial report, only one (#6) concerned the lede. The remaining six (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #7) concerned vote figures in the infobox. Glide08 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm suspecting User:2A00:F41:1C2C:9632:495C:D69E:7B8C:4686 is an IP address used to circumvent the block. I notified this on their user talk page. Glide08 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Quiltedcastle73 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked for 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1227451579 by MrOllie (talk) it is not a license, but in this case, it is clearly appropriate. again, look at BLP."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1227451039 by Viewmont Viking (talk) Does not address the problem. Again, taking bold action because living person policy takes precedence."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1227450311 by Viewmont Viking (talk) It is NOT acceptable to question a living person's sanity just because a source is "cited". Living person policy takes precedence in this case."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1227449890 by Discospinster (talk) see: living person policy. also, see: edit war policy."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1227449623 by Discospinster (talk) agreed, this should be discussed on the talk page. meanwhile, since this is a living person, the potentially libelous content should remain removed until it is settled. see: living person policy"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1227448501 by Drmies (talk) seeing as you responded in less than one minute, you obviously didn't even look at the edit. again: removing arguably libelous content, living person so action needed to be taken quickly"

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

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

Comments:

Editor is trying to claim BLP stating claims about the individuals sanity violates that policy. However the editor is removing a lot of additional cited information that would not fall under the claim of questioning the individuals sanity. so the BLP claim does not hold water. -- VViking Talk Edits 20:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear-cut violation; more than the usual first block for making six reverts in a half hour or so (Is this a record? Not that we keep them, or should, but still ...) Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Nigerianhistorian reported by User:Danial Bass (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

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

Comments:

User continues to re-include user-generated image of historical person based on no proper sourcing. Talk was conducted and no other users agree with the image to be included (no consensus). The image has been nominated for deletion Danial Bass (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The issue is already on the talk page. All users agreed except for one, and I have given him an explanation. He thought the picture violated Wikipedia's policies, but it does not! Nigerianhistorian (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Jd101991 reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Additionally, is not interested in gaining concensus:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 2)

And has resorted to insults and silly warnings on my talk page
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, with the reasons for reverts also explained here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * They have not edit warred further since the warning was placed on their talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:202.166.137.148 reported by User:Theknine2 (Result: Already blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

"List of iPhone models" uses (official Apple information) to indicate the specific iPhone models that have been designated as "vintage" or "obsolete" by Apple, and is indicated as such on the article. Despite this official information, User:202.166.137.148 continuously reverts changes made by various users, claiming that it is incorrect, despite being proven wrong with a simple check of the list on. I have already sent this accurate source + a warning onto their talk page, but this user has still been reverting edits since. Theknine2 (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * by Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the first block. However, after this 24 hour block expired, the user just casually continued to revert edits on the same article again: and  (diffs of the user's reverts). I need further action to be taken, thank you. Theknine2 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Retracting since the above issue has been resolved (for now). Theknine2 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Ada Kohlmaier-Sims reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)
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:


 * Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article. Some of the user's edits are vandalism, even if not intentional/malicious. They are doing the same thing at fr.wiki, but no one seems to be monitoring the article there.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Ravenofpoe1 and User:JeremyWilsson reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: Both pblocked)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Ravenofpoe1
 * JeremyWilsson

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am an uninvolved party, but there was a lengthy discussion 15 days ago at Talk:Aaron_Frenkel. @Ravenofpoe1 also reached out to @JeremyWilsson on their talk page, User_talk:JeremyWilsson

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

Comments:

This appears to be a re-ignition of a edit war that was improperly filed ~2 weeks ago between the two parties. MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both new WP:SPAs indefinitely from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that this is effectively granting "JeremyWilsson" his edit. I do not understand why these points regarding Aaron Frenkel are being left out, as they are well sourced and widely documented outside of Wikipedia. I'm glad that there has been outside involvement, to ensure that a balanced conclusion can be met. Ravenofpoe1 (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reverted back to (from what I can tell) is the last stable version back in February before you two got into this asinine edit war. Does it favor one of you? I don't know and I don't care. See WP:WRONGVERSION. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is correct and it's not about favoring one person or the other. The 'last stable version' had previous complaints of being written by PR Agents, and excluded many widely reported facts which are relevant for an encyclopedia. Many of the corrections I made were agreed upon in the talk page, and weren't in dispute. Ravenofpoe1 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Louise Williams reported by User:QuietHere (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1227560711 by QuietHere (talk) I saw. I also listened to the track. And listening to it confirmed it's a 39-second snippet of another song. My adjustment is accurate (my source that it's a snippet is the one at the link, all one has to do is listen to it), but if you really feel the need to make an inaccurate adjustment (it is NOT a single just because DSPs say it is), you go right ahead."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "User:Louise Williams, did you not see what I wrote the last time I undid this same edit? Please bring this to the talk page if you're insistent on it, or at least provide a new source that verifies the claim if you're gonna do it again."

Comments:

Was told multiple times to provide a source. Most recent edit summary shows blatant OR. Original addition here which is older than 48 hours. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 16:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both parties have reverted twice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Dan12333 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
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 Inside Out 2."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

reference to discussion were on revert notices, refused to engage Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Drsruli reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1228005518 by M.Bitton (talk) Since we had a previous concensus that the material should not be included, I think that the burden falls on the one restoring it."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1228005518 by M.Bitton (talk) You can ask about it in the talk section. There are obvious reasons. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1227997594 by M.Bitton (talk) Discussed extensively in the talk section."
 * 4)  "/* Palestine */ This article is not a place for including traditions in countries. (Greek and Roman is not modern countries. In any case, it wouldn't go in "Symbolism" section. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC))"

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

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

Comments:

Please note that their first edit is a revert (they know that since they are mentioning an old discussion). Also, the content that they are removing without a valid reason has been stable for months. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Some time was allowed for the original author of the content to fix. He did not not. The fact that the mistake was permitted to remain for months does not remove the underlying problem with the biased entry. Drsruli (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that: a) the content has been stable for months and you failed to provide a valid reason for why you keep obliterating the Palestine section while leaving the US despite claiming in your edit summary that the article is not a place for including traditions in countries, and b) your claim that a consensus exists for its removal is totally baseless (as highlighted by another editor on the talk page). M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Rahio1234 reported by User:Ergzay (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Ergzay (talk): You are now edit warring"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Ergzay (talk) to last revision by Rahio1234"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1227579564 by Ergzay (talk) Stop now. You will be blocked from editing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User talk:Shadestar474."
 * 2)   "/* June 2024 */"
 * 3)   "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Buster Bubbles (Arcade)."
 * 4)   "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User talk:Shadestar474."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly reverted comments put on others talk pages and then deleted warnings added to their talk page and placed warnings on to my own talk page for restoring comments that they were deleting. Ergzay (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Further they broke rules on deleting other people's comments on talk pages that are not their own. Ergzay (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This user has now additionally reported me here as well despite previous incidents where they fail to communicate and have been previously warned over misuse of this notice board. Ergzay (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

User reverted my edits.  Rah ' io ' 1234  11:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both editors have significant problems, with competence and  with a campaign to get Rahio1234 blocked that includes repeated personal attacks. I advised Ergzay a while ago that they need to put their complaints about Rahio1234 in the proper context in the appropriate venue, which would be WP:ANI. Instead,Ergzay is using backdoors to do so. Meanwhile, the nomination of the draft by Rahio1234 for lack of notability is one more indication that they are likely not a net asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23 - I agree about User:Rahio1234 but will add a comment. Nominating drafts at MFD for lack of notability is a relatively common error that appears to indicate an inexperienced reviewer who has more enthusiasm than knowledge or common sense.  I asked User:Rahio1234 why they nominated the draft, because I was wondering if better instructions for reviewers are needed to avoid this waste of time at MFD.  User:Ergzay tried to answer my question, attacking Rahio1234, and was reverted twice.  I will be looking for a report at WP:ANI, and will also be expecting more misguided nominations to delete drafts, and asking the nominators why they are making the nominations.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon Can you clarify what you mean by "I will be looking for a report at WP:ANI"? I don't quite follow. Is that a suggestion that I should create a report at WP:ANI immediately and that you want to engage in that discussion? Ergzay (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Ergzay. I am not asking you to create a report anywhere.  Either report Rahio1234 at WP:ANI, or don't report Rahio1234.  When I look at WP:ANI, one of the things that I will look for, if I remember, will be a report about Rahio1234.  Either report Rahio1234 at WP:ANI, or don't report them.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be reading between the lines here given your wording. However as I stated in my other comment, I'll hold off writing a report at WP:ANI until I see additional problematic behavior. There is hope that Rahio1234 may change. Ergzay (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 Can you point to where you previously advised me? I have not seen any warning regarding this directed toward me. Checking the previous conversation shows no warning directed at me. Are you sure you advised me? Ergzay (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But I'll take this statement itself as advice to avoid personal attacks. I'll keep an eye on Rahio1234 and report them to WP:ANI if they continue their behavior. Ergzay (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't find anywhere I warned you, either. I know I thought it, but that doesn't count for much, my apologies. Thanks for taking the advice/warning to heart. I think your plan is sound.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ergzay was advised to report Rahio1234 at WP:ANI if conduct issues continued. Ergzay reported Rahio1234 at WP:ANI.  Rahio1234 was indeffed by .  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

User:60.243.160.114 reported by User:Ustadeditor2011 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Blazefuse reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked from article for a month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  "Unnecessary politically motivated information. Including voting records may lead to a dangerous precedent."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Comments: Note: 3RR has not been violated. However, this is a slow-moving edit war that has continued after the user was warned. Appears to be politically motivated (worth mentioning that the subject of the article is currently involved in an election, which might be a motivating factor). — Czello (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 07:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * from article, i.e. through the election. User is editing against consensus and policy and has not shown any inclination to discuss either on their talk page or the article's. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:185.124.28.24 reported by User:AlphaBetaGamma (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:EVENTDOY is very clear. Uses the term "sholud be". This is not obligatory. I'm doing a sourced edits. This is not an edit warring."
 * 2)  "WP:EVENTDOY mention is made of the word "should be" which does not mean obligation. You are removing sourced content justifying that there is no specific page in wikipedia. Just because it doesn't exist an specific page on wikipedia doesn't mean it doesn't exist in real life. Its not necessary to create first an article of this."
 * 3)  "Just because it doesn't exist an specific page on wikipedia doesn't mean it doesn't exist in real life. Its not necessary to create first an article of this."
 * 4)  "No logic reason to revert this sourced edit. Explain"
 * 5)  "/* Holidays and observances */New official observance: as per UN (https://www.un.org/en/observances/international-day-of-play)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2003:ea:4f4f:c2d1:8825:c9d9:70f1:8352 reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: Page protected indefinitely)
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: No discussion has taken place on the article's talk page. was also warned but has not made a revision since being warned

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

Comments: Both users have gone back-and-forth through edit summaries, and it has also spilled into reverting on other articles. There are WP:CIVIL issues as well... -- MacAddct1984 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * indefinitely. I will log this at CTOPS under AA as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While the IP did not violate 3RR since the first edit was not a revert, it seems they have been combative in other articles and have shown an unwillingness to discuss, so I left them a CTOPS alert. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:60.243.160.114 reported by User:Ustadeditor2011 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion has taken place on the article's talk page was also warned but has not made a revision since being warned

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

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

Comments:


 * If they haven't made an edit since being warned, then the warning is working. But I have left a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:188.230.214.119 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Page protected indefinitely under CTOPS)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) 21:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) 09:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) 21:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: permalink

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (although it is directed towards the other IP editor 46.123.253.214, User:188.230.214.119 should be getting the clear message there not just from me but also all the others)

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

Comments:

Although this is an edit war involving two different IP editors on one side (188.230.214.119 and 46.123.248.0/21), this editor focusses on User:188.230.214.119. The other IP editor, 46.123.248.0/21 has at least joined the discussion on the talk page, and hasn't made any edits since 23:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC). User:188.230.214.119 on the other hand, has been constantly restoring their edit on the article without discussion on the talk page, even despite my warning on their user talk page. There are already several existing open threads on the talk page they could look at and see what the existing consensus is / join in if they want to offer their position on the matter. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * indefinitely and I will be logging this at CTOPS under BLP due to this nationalistic edit warring (EE could also apply, but this is less political/historical and we've usually logged these nationalistic disputes over living artists/performers under BLP). Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:GylonVisagie reported by User:Bahooka (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"
 * 1)  "Added successor line"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bugatti Chiron."
 * 2)   "/* June 2024 */"

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

Comments:
 * &mdash; also looks like they intended to continue making the same edits that got them blocked for edit warring the first time. -- slakr \ talk / 08:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Stormy160 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congressional_district_special_election&diff=1228038562&oldid=1228019549

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congressional_district_special_election&diff=1227959267&oldid=1227797418

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_Alaska%27s_at-large_congressional_district_special_election&diff=1213188552&oldid=1211675657

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Bringing this here on the recommendation of an administrator on Discord, because I've gotten tired of trying to deal with this for the past few months now.

I and several other editors from WP:WikiProject Voting Systems have been trying to expand 2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election with additional information regarding the new electoral system in use there, including information regarding the election as a participation and majoritarian failure. So far, we've provided citations to media sources discussing these behaviors as well as scholarly articles confirming them. In doing so, we've been consistently reverted by User:Stormy160, who has at various points on the talk claimed they're fine with the information being included, but seems to consistently revert any that includes mention of the majoritarian failure in the race. The contributions are consistently well-sourced and directly reflect the comments of experts in the field of social choice theory, but are reverted regardless of phrasing.

The 3 diffs I gave are chosen as examples. There have been many, many more (which you can find on the history page).

Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out a few things here. First, I have consistently attempted to incorporate things from the talk page into the article, and the edits have evolved over time. So I would hardly describe that as "reverting" because the intention has always been to constructively build off of the last edit. You can see that over time what I have edited has changed significantly, as I have tried to both compromise and improve the language based on the discussion, as well as keep the lede from getting too long. Second, majoritarian failure is mentioned in the current version, "They cited Begich's elimination as an example of a center squeeze, a scenario in which the candidate closest to the center of public opinion is eliminated due to failing to receive enough first choice votes.[13][14][15] More voters ranked Begich above Peltola, but Palin played the role of spoiler by knocking Begich out of contention in the first round of the run-off." And third, there's a difference between expanding information and providing an opinion framed as a fact, as I have said many times. Please look at our discussion and you'll see that I've said over and over that discussing these concepts is good as long as it is done in a way that isn't framing instant runoff voting in an overtly negative (or positive, for that matter) way. Throughout I have tried to incorporate additional information this user has provided (I'm not sure where "several other users" comes from, there was one other at one point), only to get pushback. I've tried my best to be constructive and have not just been reverting. And finally, providing an alternative set of results for the election is just a "what if" and not factual, plus to put them in the "results" section suggests they are official. There is no ill will here. Stormy160 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems that at least one other user agrees with Stormy here, and thus they are not clearly editing against a consensus. But at the same time dismissing the graf about possible alternative outcomes as "speculation" omits the fact that it's sourced speculation, which of course does not settle the argument about whether to include it but means those opposing that have to make a case on other grounds. The editors could certainly bring in more editors to the discussion to form a stronger consensus. But it really seems to me like this is the wrong article for this. Lengthy discussions of the what-ifs of the election and the merits or lack thereof of various voting systems as reflected here might best be moved to the articles about the various voting systems, or perhaps Elections in Alaska. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:CanadianEditor1995 reported by User:The Kip (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by @Zzyzx11 on June 2.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not personally, admittedly, but multiple other WikiProject Ice Hockey editors who I've collaborated with (on the article, and in combatting the reverts) have on the user's talk page. None have seemingly gotten through to the editor in question, who continues to insist we're in the wrong.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Notified at time of report.

Comments:

Effectively doing this on behalf of the multiple editors, including myself, who've had to deal with this at Utah NHL team. While the content restored has not been identical every time, the editor in question has continuously removed information denoting the team as an expansion (including reliable sources), and replaced it with claims that it's a relocation, contrary to sources. They've done the same at National Hockey League, as seen here, and their combative approach at their talk page doesn't seem to indicate they'll stop soon. They're also more than likely the same user as this IP and this IP, who were restoring/removing the same content prior to CanadianEditor1995 resgistering (which would mean we're at seven reverts here). Somewhat amusingly, they're also claiming that as a Canadian, they simply know more about the sport than we do.

Please do let me know if I'm out of line here, due to not personally participating on the talk page; I'll hand this off to one of the multiple editors who've participated there, if need be. The  Kip  (contribs) 04:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Courtesy tagging @Deadman137, @HappyBoi3892, and @Ravenswing as others who've dealt with the user in question. The   Kip  (contribs) 04:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think you're out of line. Given his incessant edit warring, his combative attitude, his utter refusal to accept that content disputes are settled by consensus, and that he has managed the startling feat of having almost every single one of his mainspace edits to date reverted -- over a dozen different articles -- CanadianEditor1995 is demonstrating that he's a poor fit for Wikipedia. Were this ANI, I'd already be advocating an indef.   Ravenswing      06:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll second what Ravenswing said. This is an editor that clearly struggles with WP:DROPTHESTICK. An indefinite block should be considered as well as an indefinite ice hockey topic ban because they are clearly here to only push their viewpoint in spite of contradictory evidence to their views. These issues are clearly demonstrated on the Utah NHL team and CanadianEditor1995 talk pages. Deadman137 (talk) 10:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not one of the tagged individuals, but I’ve reverted some of this individual's edits as well (both to the Utah NHL Team article and the National Hockey League article, where he’s done the same thing), along with extremely similar edits he’s made under other usernames and IP addresses. I strongly encourage the reviewing administrator(s) to look at CanadianEdtior1995's talk page and at the abrasive and insulting comments he leaves when anyone questions him. I happen to agree with CanadianEditor1995 that the NHL's approach to this issue is a little bit silly, but that would be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach. The NHL has definitively expressed its view on the status of the Utah and Arizona franchises. That settles the matter regardless of what individual Wikipedia editors might prefer. 1995hoo (talk) 12:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked., what "other usernames"?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23: Admittedly it is a very strong suspicion rather than ironclad proof, but shortly before Memorial Day weekend last month User:Joseph507357 was making the exact same edits CanadianEditor1995 has been making and even deleted one of my comments from the Utah NHL Team talk page in which I said he was wrong (diff: —note Joseph507357's edit summary, "Deleting false information," as to my talk page comment). I recall there was a sockpuppet investigation involving Joseph507357 and some IPs that you yourself closed for insufficient evidence. There was another investigation connecting CanadianEditor1995 and some IPs; User:Sir Sputnik closed that one because an unregistered user creating an account isn’t a sockpuppet violation. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove and thus have not requested an investigation, that CanadianEditor1995 and Joseph507357 are also the same person, given the nearly identical edits regarding the Arizona/Utah hockey issue and the extremely abrasive and confrontational approach to anyone who disagrees. (I can’t say I ever recall anyone else just flat-out deleting my comments from an article talk page. A user talk page, sure. That’s at the user's discretion. But not on an article talk page.) Not sure I will have further replies today. I’m on vacation and I’m basically online killing time in the hotel room while waiting for my wife to wake up. 1995hoo (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Haha. Why are you editing Wikipedia at all while on vacation? Not a healthy thing to do. :p Thanks for the detailed explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing else to do in the hotel room early in the morning. I can’t turn on the TV while my wife's still in bed. But I actually had a thought while in the shower just now: Joseph507357 has been strikingly silent since CanadianEditor1995 appeared on the scene. If the former now comes back to life, that fact might be the missing link. Of course, I suppose by saying that here I might be giving said user(s) motivation to try something else! 1995hoo (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, the latest spew at CanadianEditor1995's talk page is a strong bid for TPA revocation.   Ravenswing     06:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Ali Kazimov Bey reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The correct boundaries of Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 2)  "Corrections about Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 3)  "Corrections about Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 4)  "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 5)  "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 6)  "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 7)  "Corrections about Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 8)  "Corrections about status and true name of state"
 * 9)  "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 10)  "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 11)  "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 1)  "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"
 * 2)  "Correct name of Aq Qoyunlu"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * User talk:Ali Kazimov Bey

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * I specifically said (in the edit summary) that they violated 3R when reverting their edit, hoping that would make them stop, but they don't seem to care. M.Bitton (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:109.81.82.84 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

WP:NOTHERE IP causing only disruption, more or less not writing a edit summary and not using the talk pages at all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that they are still continuing to make disruptive edits without discussing. Mellk (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Daniel Case! Unfortunately, they are now avoiding their block through user account User:Ali Kazimov Bey, could you please help with this as well?  and   HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I see blocked the sock, and I have extended the block by a week for this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Kalanishashika reported by User:Petextrodon (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This appears to be a single-purpose account recently created to sabotage this particular article judging by their edit history. Partly due to their edit warring [1][2] there last month the page was protected and now they're back at it despite several warnings. Despite having been explained to them by another user last month that consensus wasn't required to add content, they've now used the same excuse "no consensus" to revert my content in violation of WP:DRNC. They admitted this was wrong, but cited another policy based on what they "feel" to revert once again without giving any substantive explanation. Looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE that won't stop without admin intervention. I have a reasonable suspicion from similar behavioral pattern this user could be potentially coordinating off-Wiki with a now topic banned user but I guess this is not the place for that report.---Petextrodon (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Response: I am sorry if I did break any rules, per the warning given by Petextrodon I thought the max number of reverts were 3 within a 24 hour period and that is why I did the fourth today since I thought it was over a 24 hours. I agree that I did get carried away on the 10th June, shouldn't have done that. However, I only did three reverts and just left. I saw Petextrodon's warning after that. However, I don't understand how his reverts are OK, an experienced editor as he, should have not kept on reverting and engage in the talk page, rather than revert and then engage in the talk page. His comments I found uncivil, and I responded to his accusation . Kalanishashika (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kalanishashika: "I thought the max number of reverts were 3 within a 24 hour period and that is why I did the fourth today since I thought it was over a 24 hours."
 * I believe that is called "gaming the system" which is forbidden here. My reverts were within the 3RR limits and I did them with good justifications since you provided non-policy reasons and also per WP:DRNC.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Petextrodon, "gaming the system" is that a new accusation against me? I explained my reasons in the talk page. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was just explaining a Wiki policy to you. It's stated at the top of this very page:
 * "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation."---Petextrodon (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Petextrodon, I disagree. I did not intend to game the system. However, what I say doesn't seems to hold ground. Seems you have already found me guilty of it, it's up to you to then pass judgement. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Gaming the system is, in this case, sort of a strict liability accusation, as the quoted policy states. Your explanation above basically admits to it. You have not offered an explanation that comes under the permitted exceptions to 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please take this as a warning that you are both edit warring, and continuing to edit war will likely result in blocks for one or both editors. Petextrodon, if you're looking for a policy-based reason for the revert of the content you're adding, then see WP:ONUS; it is your responsibility to achieve consensus for disputed content that you wish to add. - Aoidh (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm open to discussion as you can tell by the talk page. What I expect from the other user is substantive explanation than simply throwing bunch of rules at me without any details.---Petextrodon (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh By the way, is it not the case if only one user is disputing a particular content, "the existing text ordinarily remains in place during a discussion and commonly prevails if the discussion fails to reach consensus," as per WP:DRNC?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not if you just added it, no. That is not the WP:STATUSQUO version and you should not have reverted it once it was known that it was disputed. I don't agree with your assessment of the talk page discussion; your talk page behavior there is less than ideal, which includes the unsubstantiated allegations of personal behavior. They have given a valid reason why it doesn't belong, you have not provided any explanation of why you believe it does other than demanding an explanation or for policy links. You are required to explain why it should be added to the article, not the other way around. If you are able to provide an explanation as to why the content should be added to the article, I would suggest making an attempt to do so and if there's no agreement after that, both of you should look into WP:3O. - Aoidh (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By "valid reason" do you mean "The sources you have cited does not mention any reference to genocide," or "I feel the correct policy would be WP:NOTEVERYTHING"?
 * You say I did not give any explanation but I did:
 * "That's the overview of the issue. Not every single source needs to mention genocide. Analyses of genocide will be provided shortly."
 * The other user just repeated themself and made an incorrect statement: "Details are in the main article" (They aren't. Those details are ones I wrote specifically for this article). A dialogue is a two-way street. For me to better understand where the other side is coming from, they also need to make effort to communicate their disagreement effectively.---Petextrodon (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with an explanation does not mean no explanation was given. Not every single source needs to mention genocide is not an explanation of why the content does belong so much as it is a dismissal of their comment, warranted or not. - Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aoidh, warning accepted, will avoid it in the future. This is becoming very difficult, another user has | restored the newly added content that is in dispute stating "Revert to stable version" and requested to " please get consensus before adding or removing content". Is this not a WP:BRD violation? Kalanishashika (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:KaiWoodBCB reported by User:Remsense (Result: Both partially blocked 3 months)
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:

Slow-motion edit warring over the course of months. They have communicated precisely zero, despite being approached on their talk page, as well as a full-blown RFC taking place on the article talk page with clear consensus against their preferred version. Remsense 诉  07:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , is is practically impossible to take a fair action here without applying the same sanction to and you. The RfC is still open, you're not in a position to close it and the edits are unlikely to be "vandalism". It may be reasonable to remove the block from your account as soon as the RfC is closed in clear favor of your preferred revision, but edit warring is disruptive even if you are right, so please just let someone else perform the revert in such situations. If it's as clear as you apparently thought when reverting, then there was no need for you to revert and someone else looking at the situation would have done it sooner or later. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not in a position to close the RfC, but I do not think it is fair to ignore its present state either. Failing that, the present version is what was there when the RfC started—surely the distinction between changing away from the live version currently subject to an RfC versus changing back is one every good-faith editor would respect? That is the only reason I felt it was acceptable to revert—if the live version had been swapped, I would not have touched it during this time. I do not think "let someone else perform the revert" is justified—if tag-team edit warring is wrong, which it is, then this isn't automatically wrong for the same reason. Remsense  诉  09:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My "let someone else" isn't meant in an active way with you asking for it to happen. It just happens by itself in clear cases, and an uninvolved editor stumbling upon a vandalized page and restoring it is not tag-teaming. If this scenario sounds unlikely to happen, the case wasn't as clear as a "vandalism" revert during a dispute after an edit warring block (courtesy ping ) should be.
 * There is no policy-/guideline-based reason to prefer a status quo or to distinguish between "changing away" and "changing back" during a discussion strongly enough to justify edit warring by the disputants, no. Especially not one that automatically makes someone disruptively disagreeing a vandal. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I really thought that there was a policy point specifically about this, and it's my fault for having misunderstood what I previously read and not triple-checking. If I had properly realized this, I wouldn't have continued in this way. It seems ridiculous to ask you to remove the block (with theirs) based on that, given I'm not interested in editing the content in question until the RfC finishes regardless, but I'm going to struggle editing in other areas without TWL access. Remsense  诉  09:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not ridiculous, . Actually, the block inadvertently affecting the work on other articles, the explanation of a common misunderstanding and the lack of interest in continuing to edit the article anyway are all three good arguments for removing the partial block. I'll do so now, and while this isn't a very strict formal requirement (we haven't agreed on a conditional unblock yet), I do take you at your word regarding the lack of interest. Please do not continue editing the article – ideally at all – until the RfC is closed. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking me in good faith. Remsense  诉  10:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for taking me in good faith. Remsense  诉  10:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * from editing the article only. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:86.44.48.70 reported by User:CodeTalker (Result: Editor blocked 72 hours, pages protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor has been edit warring on Wish Dragon as well as Vivo (film) for several days, and has broken 3RR on both of the articles today, despite being warned against doing so. They have never communicated on a talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both pages protected two weeks. The IP has also been blocked 72 hours for edit warring to prevent further edit warring continuing on the other pages they've edited. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Whtttbsa1776 reported by User:Kathleen's bike (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (restores content removed here
 * 2)  (restores section removed in previous diff)
 * 3)  (restores content virtually idential to diff #1, except for the use of the "Private archive" source)
 * 4)  (restores section from diff #2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

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

Comments:

In the editor's constant reverting they even keep removing this improvement I made to the article's sourcing. Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are only three reverts right now. And given that they've apologized on their talk page, it might be productive to engage them in discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Excelsiorsbanjo reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Partial blocked for 6 months)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2024-06-10T03:05:21
 * 2) 2024-06-06T14:58:33‎
 * 3) 2024-06-05T02:25:52
 * 4) 2024-06-04T03:47:49
 * 5) 2024-05-25T15:41:20
 * 6) 2024-05-24T14:40:49‎
 * 7) 2024-05-24T02:29:32‎
 * 8) 2024-05-23T02:59:49
 * 9) 2024-05-22T06:02:36
 * 10) 2024-05-17T03:01:14
 * 11) 2024-02-26T14:37:18
 * 12) 2024-02-22T21:29:44
 * 13) 2024-02-16T05:23:14
 * 14) 2024-02-09T20:58:07
 * 15) 2024-01-30T08:35:07‎
 * 16) 2024-01-10T05:46:44

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2024-05-24T15:46:52‎ (which they removed shortly thereafter with the edit summary ) had previously warned them of 3RR in 2019 as well, which they acknowledged).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 2024-06-10T03:50:21

Comments:


 * Please see previous discussion, which I've included diffs from that report here for additional context. Excelsiorsbanjo is borderline WP:NOTHERE at this point, refusing to discuss their edits on the talk page, and ignoring the straw poll completely (which is unanimous at this point). They've made the statement that they will continue to revert without end . —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If an admin is waiting for Excelsiorsbanjo to reply here, based on the prior report and the fact that they didn't reply to it at all, it should be clear there's no interest in addressing their conduct, just being disruptive. They've already removed the ANEW notice from their talk page with the edit summary which appears to be their default response to things they don't like here. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Pblocked from the article for 6 months. They clearly don't want to follow consensus, so they can use the talk page instead. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite Given the demonstrated recalcitrance I'd recommend just indef from that page and then let them appeal it and convince someone they're not going to immediately return to protracted edit warring. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Or you could pay attention to the actions of this other edit warrior, who just keeps spamming this board until he gets the chump response he wants. =P Also, you should actually read the talk pages you're talking about, Black Kite, still. Like, that is elementary. I know you haven't read it. It's obvious. Anyway the lesson I'm learning here is whine to admins over and over and ignore consensus until some foolish admin who can't or won't read just knee-jerk does what I want. But I already knew that was how Wikipedia worked, which is exactly why I have done nothing but revert edits on this matter. Talking to you people is an absolute waste of time. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the continued edit warring on this page, while this solves it temporarily (not in the way I would have liked when I handled a similar complaint a couple of weeks ago), I will be putting a CTOPS notice on the talk page per CT/CID since this clearly falls under that, if and when this sort of dispute resumes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering there's literally nobody else reverting to add this back in, I don't expect it to continue unless the underlying behavior doesn't change. Regardless, I also placed a notification about CT/CID on Excelsiorsbanjo's talk page. Like every other policy-based communication they've received, I expect this to also be considered . —Locke Cole • t • c 22:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It led to two reports here ... that makes it contentious for me (And yes, this time Eb earned this resolution; I still believe they had a point but they still have to follow policy when they edit and this went beyond what good faith can tolerate).
 * They can certainly delete the CTOPS notice; it's not one of the things WP:BLANKING forbids users from removing from their talk pages. They cannot say they didn't read it, though.
 * And yes, one of these days I am going to email the Spokesman-Review to suggest this story. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Two reports by the same person. He didn't get what he wanted the first time and now with a whole different person he has. Whatever system you all think you have here, it doesn't work. I don't mind running afoul of silly admins on Wikipedia, that's just life on Wikipedia, but if you can't see that you're being played here, you are lost. Excelsiorsbanjo (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This gives me a strong WP:NOTHERE vibe, anyone who is not Eb objecting for this to go to AN/I? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection here. I debated this second report vs AN/I anyways so it feels like it’s heading that way anyways with the attitude they’re expressing. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you give me links to Eb's statements? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They've made 354 edits, it shouldn't be hard to look through their recent contribution history if you need diff links.
 * But take your pick, their comments here and their comments at Talk:Spokane County, Washington (where their first reply included without providing any actual links/sources, then a LOT of spelunking by @Leif One and @JT Ramsey, then EB (in their first reply since their initial claim of "plenty" of sources) claims Leif is  (which as this is the very next response by EB since their first response, what was Leif ignoring?), then continues by saying . So that's a lot, but basically claiming Leif is not editing in good faith while Leif is the only one who actually appeared to make any effort to find sources (EB just waved it away earlier with the "local newspaper has plenty on it"), stating Leif is "outnumbered" (which is a strange claim considering only EB so far had shown any desire to keep the flag), generally being unhelpful with the "paths forward" statement (while also hinting at some bias in their behavior), and then claiming consensus (without citing any prior discussion to demonstrate this). Finally EB ends with what appears to be their personal opinion ("concerned with reality").
 * And then just keep reading their replies in that thread, they nearly bludgeon the conversation with their false claims of "consensus" (without ever really demonstrating such consensus exists), and edit war on the basis of those claims (see the 16 diffs linked at the top of this report spread out over many months). And they appear to just plan to wait out the clock on their page block and begin again from their comments directly above . They've made 354 edits over seven years, that's about 51 edits a year on average. Their 16 reverts above account for nearly 5% of their total edit history. Being confidently wrong (about consensus, edit warring, the sources, etc) is never a good look, and doubling down on it even less so... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection. I've encouraged Eb to do research, find facts, but they have not. I welcome any and all facts about this interesting, trivial flag in Spokane's past. Clearly it should not be forgotten, but also, it is not a flag that Spokane embraced or uses today. It is a documented relic of the past. Leif One (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Eb, as someone who sees your side of this, I would remind you that comments like this do lend support to the suggestion that you are not assuming good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The only WP:CTOP I see is WP:GAMING over WP:EW (and maybe a smidge of WP:CIV). I agree they can delete the notice, just noting I don't expect anything other than the behavior witnessed so far. I look forward to seeing what your story suggestion produces as a result, more clarity is never a bad thing. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Logosx127 reported by User:Pbritti (Result: RfC)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It is sourced and backed by official records. If there's a satisfactory reason to no add it then prove it."
 * 2)  "Restoring status quo ante for dispute resolution"
 * 3)  "Per evidence from official press release letter heads and church particular law provided in talk"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1229043989 by Pbritti (talk) It is indeed the official name as obvious from almost all press releases and circulars. One example would be this post from the offical Fb page"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1229043989 by Pbritti (talk) It is indeed the official name as obvious from almost all press releases and circulars. One example would be this post from the offical Fb page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Dispute 15 June */ Reply"

Comments:

This editor persistently refuses to follow the discussion process and constantly reverts their additions despite opposition, even when confronted with evidence presented by multiple editors. Despite ongoing discussion, they restored their preferred bold alterations just outside the 24 hour window. On the same page back in March, they engaged in the same refusal to accede to discussion (even accusing an appeal to the relevant WikiProject for a third opinion to be forum shopping). Additionally, please see their talk page history for recently deleted personal attacks and aspersions. Pbritti (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see March's ANI discussion for prior history of edit warring. Also note that this is a recently unblocked sockpuppet of another account that had been blocked three times for edit warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I must totally disagree with this false allegation put forward by the editor recently involved in disputes with me. I have not been edit warring here. As you can see, I have neither reverted more than three times and the edits that I have done clearly did not break the 3RR rule. I am totally aware this must have been avoided as well but I mentioned this to clarify that I never intended in editing-warring in the first place.
 * Actually I am the one who have originally opened the discussions in the talk page. I have shared multiple sources to support my edits but the user is neither willing to assess the sources nor trying to create a dispute resolution. In such a condition, I restored the status quo ante. The user meanwhile was trying to add their own preferred version disregarding even the status quo ante.
 * Logosx127 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You regularly engage in tendentious editing, game the system, and wikilawyering. Back in the ANI, everyone involved noted how unwilling you were to concede to consensus or permit discussion. You've had enough rope. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify that I was the one who initially wanted the administrators' intervention in this matter. As soon as I clarified it, Pbritti maliciously added this complaint here. I have often had disputes with the same user on this and many other articles and I have so far taken the position of accepting the general consensus on all of these issues. Also remember that not all consensus has been against me, as this user's comments falsely suggest, many have been against this user. I am sure that this user is gaining an unfair advantage by referring disputes to certain WikiProjects and doing the entire discuss there. I believe these are attempts of forum shopping were they can gather support from like minded editors instead of neutral ones. I opposed it only because I already have this one complaint.Logosx127 (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile Pbritti was repeatedly trying to disregard and manipulate the sources I provided in the talk page. I can point that this behavior of the user has been the main reason why this dispute has gone on so long, and why I have had disputes with the same user multiple times. I am not saying that one should fully accept what the other says, but at least the evidence provided should be taken with the importance it deserves and without distortion. The user exhibited an exactly same behaviour in a past discussion in the same article talk page there I was able to discuss there properly as it was done on that article talk page itself. Logosx127 (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Administrators reviewing this report might wish to read User talk:Bbb23.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Logosx127 has self-reverted. It doesn't appear likely that Logo and Pbritti will be able to resolve the dispute based on their sniping on the article Talk page. Therefore, I suggest they try another form of dispute resolution. WP:3o or an RfC might work.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per Bbb23 and in lieu of Logosx127 doing so, I have . All are welcome to comment. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Alexqal reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed unnecessary informations which were making this simple page look heavy, added notables"
 * 2)  "no need of garbage heap, only facts and crisp information has been added."
 * 3) Diffs using socks -
 * 4) Diffs using socks -

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Vikram Sarabhai."
 * 2)   "/* June 2024 */ Reply"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Gupta."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps removing sourced content / sources and adds unsourced stuff. They have been doing it using multiple IDs. I've opened an SPI case here.


 * Also note similar edits/edit war by this ID and IPs   . Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I used the checkuser tool to confirm the sockpuppetry. I have blocked the account indefinitely as a sock. PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please take a look at the SPI case I opened. Perhaps it needs to be moved/closed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Chingis2024 reported by User:Auzandil (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My warning

User:Adakiko Other users' warnings in last 24 hours:







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

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

Comments:


 * This user has repeatedly ignored MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and deleted various Wikipedia contents without providing any summary. They continue to ignore them despite warnings.

They have also violated the 3RR on Chuvash people, Volga Tatars, and many others. They may have ethnic nationalistic feelings. He keep changes word 'Turkic' with 'Tatar' or 'Kazakh', sometimes delete/change genetic studies on ethnic groups. Most of which without any summary.    

They have cited unrelated YouTube videos as sources. His edit summary is sometimes manipulative and don't represent the actual changes he did. Auzandil (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:18A:C500:330:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: Range page-blocked for a year.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

a) 06:16, 16 June 2024

b) 19:48, 16 June 2024

c) 19:46, 16 June 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Reverting to restore a) 06:27, 16 June 2024
 * 2)  Reverting to restore b) 19:53, 16 June 2024
 * 3)  Reverting to restore b) 01:34, 17 June 2024
 * 4)  Reverting to restore c) 01:36, 17 June 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: Similar edit warring to substantially alter the POV against long-established consensus on A Troublesome Inheritance:. Note too that this topic is covered by the race and intelligence contentious topic area. Generalrelative (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was about to report this IP user at WP:AN/I for blatant POV-pushing but beat me to it. IP has edit-warred to push a disputed POV while ignoring an invitation to discuss their changes at Talk:A Troublesome Inheritance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not a 3RR violation; diffs number 3 and 4 are consecutive, so they count as one revert. I have, however, page-blocked the IP range from Nicholas Wade and A Troublesome Inheritance for one year for persistent tendentious editing. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Soosider3 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1229518057 by Czello (talk)Making this article consistent with other main parties in Scotland where Ideology in Infobox is consistent with Infobox usage, please feel free to use these 'citations' to expand the actual Ideology section in the article, that is the correct and appropriate place for them (if anywhere) 11.000 charetors in this revert sort of highlights the nonsense of these citations in th"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1229517436 by Czello (talk)Reverted as this is Infobox, by all means enlarge in actual article but this is misuse of inforbox and swamps it, many so called Ideologies are no such thing, My approach here is consistent with articles on other main Parties in Scotland"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1229469716 by Helper201 (talk)Misuse of Infobox to swamp it with so called "citations" many of which are unreachable and/or unrelated to subject in hand. If someone wants to move them into the text of teh article then by all means do so. Many of entries in Ideology are not ideology, again see previous discussion and use text in article to expand if desired."
 * 4)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"
 * 5)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"
 * 6)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"
 * 7)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"
 * 8)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"
 * 9)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"
 * 10)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"
 * 11)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"
 * 12)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"
 * 1)  "Removed superflous citations, this is Info box, meant to be short and high level information, please use text of article to expand on highlights"

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

Comments:

Edit warring against two users; has been asked to follow WP:BRD and was notified of WP:3RR before their final edit. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:Saltsjöbaden (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

The user is removing a section under Culture, regarding the Cultural Autonomies Act, with a different reasoning given every time. The latest revert claiming "racism" is especially difficult to respond to, as this is both untrue and also irrelevant to the topic.

Latest stable version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Estonia&oldid=1229021045

Reverts:


 * Revert one
 * Revert two
 * Revert three

Saltsjöbaden (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

User:80.3.122.252 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Various IPs, mostly 80.3.122.252, in a long-running edit-war over the recent history of Donald Campbell's water speed record boat Bluebird K7.

There is some very POV editing going on, with a total disregard of either the need for sourcing, or the sources that are available. This is very likely a spill over from an acrimonious real-life situation between a museum and the team who have spent years restoring the boat. It's also fairly widespread on Twitter. One of the parties here, has a traceable IRL identity, is active on Twitter and has been expanding the article, not always perfectly according to local WP practice, but always with GF and a willingness to edit afterwards to meet WP's restrictions. Then they're just reverted or blanked by an IP who thinks they can write anything. And, being an anon IP, so far they can do.

More eyes needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * for three months. This will keep the IPs off but allow Nigel to continue editing. I saw that the IPs have also been busy on the Campbell page ... we can protect that, too, if need be. If it gets to the point of blocking the IPs, the 83.137 one, based on London, is dynamic so we will have to calculate a range. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

User:125.165.201.184 reported by User:ObserveOwl (Result: blocked for a month)
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 Maebe A. Girl."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Maebe A. Girl."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Blocked for a month. Edits were against policy on non-binary people. PhilKnight (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * For that reason I have also put a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And I have RevDel'ed the edits. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

User:GylonVisagie reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked for 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added the attendance that was announced, if it's inaccurate, then write "disputed attendence""
 * 1)  "Added the attendance that was announced, if it's inaccurate, then write "disputed attendence""
 * 1)  "Added the attendance that was announced, if it's inaccurate, then write "disputed attendence""
 * 1)  "Added the attendance that was announced, if it's inaccurate, then write "disputed attendence""

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

This comes less than 24 hours after their last block expired. They've also made multiple personal attacks and have said they intend to keep edit warring and don't get about being 'banned'. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * for edit warring and personal attacks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given their recent comments I wouldn't expect them to be improved after a month, but I suppose we'll see. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 14:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User:BBWritersInc reported by User:Notwally (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No."
 * 2)  "No."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1229709918 by Notwally (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1229228479 by Notwally (talk)"

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

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

Comments:

Based on their latest response, it does not appear they are going to use the talk page. They are a single-purpose account that has only made 8 edits, all to this page. Their username looks like it's a company as well. – notwally (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Fifth revert. Came to report this user, seen that there's already a report open. I agree with OP that this seems to clearly be paid editing. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 12:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely blocked for promotional username, undisclosed paid editing, and edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2001:1308:2DF2:D100:81E4:2A17:7CB9:289D reported by User:FlightTime (Result: No violation Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The Song was recorded in April 2002"
 * 2)  "Song recorded from January to March 2002."
 * 3)  "The song was recorded in May 2002."
 * 4)  "It was Officially recorded from January to March 2002."
 * 1)  "The song was recorded in May 2002."
 * 2)  "It was Officially recorded from January to March 2002."
 * 1)  "It was Officially recorded from January to March 2002."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on I Hate Everything About You."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: However, let's see what happens on the other songs by the band whose articles they've edited. following your report on RFPP. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Tedickey being reported by User:Sssueueh (Malformed, declined,then blocked for personal attacks)
This individual keeps deleting factual information that is cited from a published author as facts. And deleting information about a notable individual in the notable people's section. And then falsely claiming that this is vandalism I would like for them to be blocked from editing this page. Sssueueh (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This user has deleted my information multiple times if they do it again I'm asking that they're blocked Sssueueh (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, they haven't, This is an inappropriate use of AN3, and a malformed report. TEDickey has reverted you once, Magnoloa677 twice. The one who is edit-warring is you, at least at Largo, Maryland. "Notable people" should be added to a locale only once they have their own, separate article. The reverts of your edits are in line with guidelines for this kind of article. If you continue to edit-war to include non-notable (or at least people who lack articles), you may be blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not edit warring you are lying those are two separate articles that I placed information on and you're trying to add them both like they're the same you are a liar. And I will not be blocked but you will be blocked if you delete what I post it will be considered edit Warring. Sssueueh (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm warning you if you delete what I post it will be considered edit warn I do not care if you guys are on separate computers and working together I promise you you will be blocked this is your last warning if you do so Sssueueh (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * for the behavior on display above.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

User:98Tigerius reported by User:NoWikiNoLife (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I have updated current world rankings from the official FIVB men's Volleyball World Ranking page (https://en.volleyballworld.com/volleyball/world-ranking/men). The reported user keeps reverting my edits without any explanation, abusing his administrator powers. I am sick and tired of having to report edit wars with such users who don't bother checking updated official data and just revert any update that THEY 'don't know where it came from'. Wikipedia truly needs to deal with such overbearing editors who take liberties and undo other editors' work for no real reason. These ego-trips need to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoWikiNoLife (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

User: MylowattsIAm reported by User:Saltsjöbaden (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

Also:

Page:

Page:

Page:

The user is showing a history of edit warring on multiple articles, with multiple edit warring warnings from different editors on their talk page. Seemingly stopping shy from just 3 reverts and limiting their reverts to 2 over a 24h period.

The most recent edit warring is from June 18-June 19 on Finnish language:


 * Revert 2
 * Revert 1

Previous disruptive editing on the same topic on June 14:


 * Edit 2
 * Edit 1

User being reported:

The user's talk page includes a history of edit warring warnings from multiple other editors and also a previous block for edit warring.
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2A04:4A43:8A4F:F066:A525:BDE8:BB3F:231E reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Parties with representation in the House of Commons */"
 * 2) fifth revert
 * 1)  "/* Parties with representation in the House of Commons */"
 * 2) fifth revert
 * 1) fifth revert

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of political parties in the United Kingdom."

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

Comments: by Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Ustadeditor2011 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked for a month from article under CTOPS)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Ustadeditor2011 has been edit-warring to remove "Founded by	N. Chandrababu Naidu" from the infobox.

Diffs of the user's reverts: (edit summaries in green)
 * 1) 08:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 04:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) by Singhal.sasthry, edit summary lead clear
 * 2) 04:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 01:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC) by IP editor, edit summary it is not the individuals that dictates it is the government
 * 3) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC) by IP editor, edit summary founder is not chandra babu or jagan it is the government, capitals are not found by people, and you first login with username dont disrupt articles
 * 4) 11:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 09:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC) by IP editor, edit summary rv disruptive editing violating 3RR
 * 5) 16:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 13:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC) by IP editor, edit summary rv disruptive IP editing
 * 6) 02:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 12:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) by IP editor, edit summary updated lead section, clean up it is not founded by naidu, pls stop it
 * 7) 04:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 03:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC) by IP editor, edit summary it is talking about establishment, not individual, stop disrupting the article or will be reported in admin notice board for edit warring
 * 8) 15:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 19:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC) by IP editor, edit summary rv ip disruptive edits clean up heavy vandalism
 * 9) 02:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 17:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC) by Toddy1, edit summary founder is not N Chandrababu Naidu, it is Vasireddy Venkatadri Nayudu how many times I should tell you?
 * 10) 07:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reverted edit of 04:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC) by Toddy1, edit summary see talk page, the name of Amaravti is from the original Amaravathi site founded by Vasiraju stop rubbing your european tactics on articles related to AP and Telangana, we dont need ur manipulations here

Diff of final warning: 21:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC) by DMacks

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

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

Note that Ustadeditor2011 has warned two of the IP editors that they were edit warring: -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User talk:60.243.160.114 on 14:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User talk:60.254.127.164 on 15:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

from article as a contentious topics block appealable to ArbCom only. They were made aware of CTOPS two weeks ago. I have logged this at CTOPS under IPA, but since the edits in question also involve the infobox this sanction can be seen as coming under that topic area as well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

User:206.198.189.18 reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Blocked 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "my edit is the very definition of a constructive addition to wikipedia, and i will continue to add it as i think you are a edit fascist who thinks they own this site"
 * 2)  "this is utterly absurd, i am trying to be helpful"
 * 3)  "you have got to be kidding me, none of his performances are cited, but you undo this one, just go to his frigging imdb page"
 * 4)  "/* Television */"
 * 1)  "/* Television */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 2)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 4)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 5)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 6)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 7)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 8)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 9)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 10)   "Note: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 11)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 12)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 13)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 14)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 15)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 16)   "Note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 17)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 18)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 19)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.5)"
 * 20)   "Note: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Blocked for 31 hours by .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Bravehm reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:19, 24 May 2024
 * 2) 21:56, 24 May 2024
 * 3) 23:22, 24 May 2024
 * 4) 23:31, 24 May 2024
 * 5) 13:58, 20 June 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Manipulate long term edit warring. On 25 May they reverted themselves after being warned of getting blocked by an admin. However, almost a month later, they've went ahead and reverted most of their edit back under the dishonest edit summary "Inappropriate changes, restored sourced info". In fact, this user constantly engages in manipulation, as you can for example see in the thread where they got warned and their previous edit warring report. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bbb23! HistoryofIran (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Seba guarino reported by User:Soetermans (Result: No violation Blocked 24h + 72h + indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on SpongeBob SquarePants."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user insists on adding an unnecessary shorthand for a TV series. Three reverts in less than an hour. I myself just hit the undo button again, but reverted myself. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The first edit isn't a revert, so only two. And they've stopped since then. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, please check again. Behaviour continues. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also continuing reverting on Teletubbies. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Still didn't violate 3RR on either article, but I didn't know they were doing this on more than one article, which is different. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * after they went right back to this following the block's expiration. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They've returned with the same edits after the 72-hour block expired  Barry Wom (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Hatekor76 reported by User:PetraMagna (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: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Yejin Choi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Several attempts have been made in edit summaries to let the user provide a source to no avail. The user also has a record of removing content, changing numbers, and altering dates in other articles without an edit summary. PetraMagna (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Montigliani reported by User:Miria~01 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

'Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user is trying to force his point of view against the consensus without evidence and is ignoring any sources or arguments from other users. <b style="color:black">Mir</b><b style="color:#EE3939">ia~01</b> (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

User:AHI-3000 reported by User:Manyareasexpert (Result: Declined)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Stepan Bandera/Archive 4

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

Comments:

The editor has a track record of pushing contested article categories with edit war. Some warnings they received:,  ,  ,  ,.

It's hard to track warnings received by the editor, since they remove the warnings received from their talk page without archiving them.

Latest episode: edit that was reverted, they then undo  the revert without discussing it.

Edit which was reverted, they then return  the edit without discussing it.

The latest article is also within Eastern Europe contentious topic, but I'm not sure if they received a CT warning in a past. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What's your point? These are all separate and unrelated disputes from the past that were resolved. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My response to your response which I couldn't post since you deleted it: I'm sorry but if I would know another way to stop you from pushing your changes with edit war, I would use it. You can always undo your changes and start discussing them on a talk page per WP:CONS however. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds as if this is more a matter for AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Nickodamus reported by User:TechnoSquirrel69 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Feature films */"
 * 2)  "/* Feature films */ There are inaccuracies in the list"
 * 3)  "/* Feature films */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple warnings and invitations to the talk page notwithstanding, this user has unfortunately been persistent in restoring their preferred revision. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 19:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The latest revert was #3, so not a 3RR violation yet  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

User:47.227.82.255 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Almost eveything was wrong.  This article had some of the most ridiculous claims.  This album did no sell 30 million copies.  It did not outsell EVERY ALBUM EVER RECORDED. (🤣). It was never the best selling album in Atlantic’s catalogue (Led Zeppelin was on Atlantic . Lmao).  It did not sell 8 million in its fist year Nor was it the best selling album of 1968.    Eveything was completely false and totally ridiculous.   Obviously the publicist for this band keeps adding it in.  And I’ll contin..."
 * 2)  "The album did not sell 30 million copies.  That statement is completely false and misleading.  Check the best selling albums of all time. This album is NOT on it.  It did not sell 30 million.  That false content has been removed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 30 million copies? */ new section"

Comments:

IP (possible sock as well per Talk page) repeatedly deleting text without sufficient explanation or discussion. DonIago (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

User:153.107.26.88 reported by User:FlightTime (Result:IP blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This was not edit warring. The IP was instead vandalizing the article, and had already been reported at AIV. IP was blocked for 72 hours by user: Ad Orientem. Meters (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)