Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive484

User:Rwalfrey reported by User:MarioProtIV (Result: Blocked 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1230751974 by MarioProtIV (talk)  No basis provided for undoing my revision."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1230751325 by WeatherWriter (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1230751413 by WeatherWriter (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1230750883 by WeatherWriter (talk)  There is no basis for undoing my edit provided by the user."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1230750839 by WeatherWriter (talk)  There is no basis provided for undoing my edit."
 * 6)  "The source does not say 321 MPH was the max PROBABLE wind speed.  It could be max possible.  Your source does not support your edit."
 * 7)  "No max likely wind speed listed for bridge creek-moore tornado.  Key term is MAX LIKELY."
 * 8)  "No "most likely" max wind speed stated in the source provided for the 2013 El Reno tornado."
 * 9)  "Undid revision 1230739961 by WeatherWriter (talk)  The 321 MPH figure is NOT listed in the source to be max PROBABLE or MAX POSSIBLE.  Therefore any edits based on this paper alone are unjustified sans confirmation of what that 321 MPH figure refers to.  It also does not contain a range, which all DOW measurements contain.  For all we know 321 is just the high end of that range."
 * 1)  "No max likely wind speed listed for bridge creek-moore tornado.  Key term is MAX LIKELY."
 * 2)  "No "most likely" max wind speed stated in the source provided for the 2013 El Reno tornado."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1230739961 by WeatherWriter (talk)  The 321 MPH figure is NOT listed in the source to be max PROBABLE or MAX POSSIBLE.  Therefore any edits based on this paper alone are unjustified sans confirmation of what that 321 MPH figure refers to.  It also does not contain a range, which all DOW measurements contain.  For all we know 321 is just the high end of that range."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continues to rapidly revert edits and violating WP:3RR far too many times. No attempt at all to resolve via talk page. Was told by WeatherWriter@undefined to stop and given reasons to stop but has continued to do so unabated. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 14:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The editor is new, and it wasn't explained to them that edit warring is not allowed. PhilKnight (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As Mario presses the undo for every revision I make within second,s while providing no valid reason. Rwalfrey (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will block you if you continue to edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48 hours., at 14:17, Rwalfrey was warned about edit-warring. At 14:23, Rwalfrey responded "Gotcha and understood. No worries." At 14:37 they reverted at the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:681:6183:1ED0:386F:646B:AD35:4308 reported by User:WikiOriginal-9 (Result: /64 blocked for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP has been doing this for months. ~WikiOriginal-9~ ( talk ) 03:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure if these are also related to the above: Special:Contributions/2601:681:6180:D140:B9C6:5DBC:9A45:A64C and Special:Contributions/2601:681:6180:D140:4D9D:2BF:A09B:A50. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I know I’ve been seeing this for a good while, so I peeked at the page histories. I noticed this editing pattern on Mark Teixeira and Todd Helton going back to June 2020. There are a few other entries involved. Uses the article name or the entire opening sentence as an edit summary. Appears to despise the word former. Sometimes removes the blue links from the lead. Responsible for pretty much the whole protection log on Helton. No sign of a desire for collaboration. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The /64. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2603:8081:B00:A900:D11D:4771:FE60:6104 reported by User:Sumanuil (Result: No violation, yet)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Changed text for accurate information. Isreal365News is not a reliable source and the source used fabricates that Canaan Dogs were proven to roam the Middle East 9,000 years ago. Article sciencedirect is sourced from Isreal365News and states that dogs resembling Canaan were depicted on wall art in the area."
 * 2)  "Corrected misinformation and added a reliable source. Old source used is unreliable, it cited a web page that claimed the dog to be the oldest breed in Isreal area. This is not correct, the Canaan dog was first bred in the early 20th century. The old citation made a false claim from another source that says that rock art found in Neolithic times depict dogs reminiscent of Canaan, but is not proven to be the same breed."
 * 3)  "Correcting misinformation and changing source to a more reliable citation."
 * 4)  "Corrected misinformation by including source of corrected origin of the Canaan dog breed."
 * 1)   "/* June 2024 */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* June 2024 */"
 * 3)   "/* June 2024 */"
 * 4)   "/* June 2024 */"
 * 5)   "Warning: Edit warring on Canaan Dog."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: WP:IDONTLIKETHEM ≠ "misinformation". This sort of thing happens all the time with this article. Does it require protecting as part of Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli_conflict?  -  Sumanuil  '''. ''' (talk to me) 04:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The first edit was not a revert. The other ones are. Thus, the editor is at the limit but has not edited since. If they do this call can and should be reconsidered. And, really, this should have been taken up on the talk page, per the above comment. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User:77.29.65.141 reported by User:Chaotic Enby (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1230786803 by Gaismagorm (talk)biased information"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1230786619 by Jingiby (talk) undo the fasism of JINGBY"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1230786194 by Chaotic Enby (talk)biased infomartion there is it it is explained"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1230783910 by LakesideMiners (talk) biased information"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1230783178 by AgisdeSparte (talk) not true that not adhering to neutral point of view (HG) WIKIPEDIA IS BIASED AGUESNT MACEDONIANS THAT IS THE FACT THAT HURT THIS FASIST WIKIPEDIA WIKIPEDIA=FASISM AND FALSE INFORMATION AND FAKE NEWS WITH BIASED INFORMATION"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1230782957 by AgisdeSparte (talk)"
 * 7)  "/* Political career */ removed bias information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Repeated content removal */ new topic"

Comments:

Unwillingness to discuss on talk page, repeatedly calls Wikipedia "fascist" in edit summaries (see also Special:Diff/1230783754). Chaotic Enby  (talk · contribs) 18:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * As a note I have just reported them to AVI.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 18:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And they have been blocked  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 18:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * for 24 hours by . Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Vaporwave8266287695 reported by User:Lone-078 (Result: 48 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent addition of unsourced content, failure to communicate, unchanged behavior after final warning Lone-078 (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The report wasn't fully filled out, nonetheless, looking at the article history, Vaporwave8266287695 hasn't gone over 3RR. Vaporwave8266287695 has however been warned up to level 4 for unsourced edits, so I have blocked them for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

User:176.216.18.135 reported by User:Notwally (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported: (same editor)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 1230895608 by Notwally (talk) Stop the edit war. #fascists"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1230891249 by Notwally (talk) It seems that Armenian antisemitist and antiturkist gang is on duty again."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1230876850 by Buidhe (talk) How come it’s a genocide? Is that proven? Total numbers of so called murderers are not realistic and this lie’s supporters always dismiss the Armenians’ massacres of Turks. Your profile suggests that you are biased as well. #hypocrites #hatecrime #antiturkism #antisemitism #nazizm #sovietism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1230821184 by Archives908 (talk) You can’t remove the facts."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1230816111 by Archives908 (talk) Wikipedia is not your playground. You are the one who vandalises the Wiki, you should get punished and blocked. #AntiTurkism #AntiSemitism"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1230814356 by Archives908 (talk) no logic of your action. You are creating instability. It was stable, it had infobox as in other language versions of Wiki but you can’t bear it to show objective data"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1230795625 by Archives908 (talk) it’s not disruption, it’s seeking the truth. Please don’t abuse Wiki rules and don’t bar it to be objective source"
 * 8)  "Denial? This statue does not dictate denial of a thing, not even a response to Armenian allegations. Actually Turkey supported formation of joint historian commission to objectively investigate what happened but Armenian lobby and Armenia want to impose their claims by imposition. (See: https://www.mfa.gov.tr/declaration-by-the-turkish-grand-national-assembly_-supporting-the-turkish-proposal-to-form-a-joint-historical-commission-with.en.mfa) Untrue? How come it’s decided untrue? #anti-Turkism"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Vandalism by user Archives908 */ WP:EW WP:PA WP:SOAP"

Comments:

IP editor is edit warring to insert POV and has now started edit warrign on user Archives908's talk page to attack them. The IP was previously using 46.221.206.150. – notwally (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The users keep removing useful infobox and content inserted with reliable sources like in other language versions of mentioned page. They started an edit war but they try to ban an IP user, me, as I object their political propaganda and keep inserting facts instead of bets. There’s also a topic on the mentioned page’s Talk Page but those users are far from giving the truth.
 * p.s. Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan also admitted that Armenian Genocide was a lie and Soviet propaganda. However they still behave with childish ambitions. 176.216.18.135 (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Genocide denial, promting WP:FRINGE beliefs, and calling other users fascists, Nazis, Soviets, and other things. One way trip to a block, this is. — Czello (music) 09:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It’s not proven, so you can’t treat this that way. See also Perinçek v. Switzerland.
 * My trip is one way to block, ok. So where’s your trip’s direction, joining real genociders and fascists like Hitler and Mussolini? You sound like their dirty spokespeople. #antisemitism #antiturkism #sovietpropaganda #frenchexpansionism #armenianexpansionism #turkishgenocide 176.216.18.135 (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another revert. — Czello (music) 09:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also doubling down on personal attakcs. — Czello (music) 09:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A tenth revert, more personal attacks. — Czello (music) 09:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How many people you are trying to silence me? It’s very bad and immature of you to avoid real conversations. Only shadowing and hiding the facts with childish behaviours. WIKIPEDIA, GET BACK TO YOUR FACTORY SETTINGS AND DON’T LET THOSE PROPAGANDISTS AND LOBBYISTS TO STAY HERE. KEEP THEM AWAY AND BECOME MORE REPUTABLE ONCE YOU ARE.
 * Look what Larry Sanger said: [] 46.106.250.113 (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a block is also required for, who appears to be the same user, as they're continuing the other IP's genocide denial on the talk page. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> (<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>) 10:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * by User:Johnuniq. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Michalis1994 reported by User:D.S. Lioness (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

remove tags Although i explain every revert i made he continues to revert my changes without to use edit summary   ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afroditi_Latinopoulou&diff=prev&oldid=1230703015 and attacking me in person]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:



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

Comments:

It is not about 3RR but for rejecting my contribution without discussing it in a goof faith manner See also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Insults_/_Bullying and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#No_cooperation,_no_good_faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.S. Lioness (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If this isn't about edit warring, but a behavioral issue, it is best reported at WP:ANI. However, because the editor has responded on Talk:Afroditi Latinopoulou, reporting at ANI is likely non-actionable. It doesn't seem actionable here, either. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I have been banned from the article as every contribution is reversed brutally D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not banned. I see no administrative block record or Arbcom decision about that, unless it was under a different username that you haven't disclosed.
 * I advise you to read WP:BRD. If you are reverted, seek consensus for your change on the article's talk page. As far as I can tell, both of you have made edits that would be considered disruptive. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you! D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ~Anachronist (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2603:8081:5501:93E3:35BE:C02F:380:CD83 reported by User:SmittenGalaxy (Result: Article semi-protected for 2 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Brooklyn Nets (2023–2024) */Confirmed by the Knicks via espn"
 * 2)  "What kinda name is Prisoned Muffin...... Confirmed by Espn"
 * 3)  "/* Brooklyn Nets (2023–2024) */Trade confirmed by espn"
 * 4)  "/* Brooklyn Nets (2023–2024) */Confirmed by espn"
 * 5)  "Confirmed on X that player was traded to the New York Knicks"
 * 6)  "He's not a beat reporter..... Stop being such a Richard.  You don't own his wiki"
 * 7)  "Confirmed on X by adam Schefter"
 * 8)  "Confirmed by Adam Schefter"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Article semi-protected for 2 days by .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Phoebetan10 reported by User:Paper9oll (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added back the reception to the television series"
 * 2)  "Added back the reception to the television series"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Magi Merlin reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 17:31 June 27

Diffs of the user's reverts: ... and continuing still to add non-RS.
 * 17:45
 * 18:35
 * 18:50
 * 19:04

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 17:42
 * 17:52
 * 18:41
 * 18:42

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 17:55
 * 18:43

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

Comments:

AN SPA who is blanking well cited text (eg New York Times), using primary sources that do not meet WP:RS to further one POV, and removing tags. See recent ArbCase on Venezuelan politics and likelihood of whitewashing of Election articles to reflect one POV; secondary sources indicate the POV being pushed by newly created "pollsters", which are dismissed by reliable secondary sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Albertatiran reported by User:Belomaad (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user ignores other fellow editors and sees no other alternative but to engage in edit warring. This behaviour is repeated in almost all the articles he edits. Usually users are very cooperative and help one another in fixing issues of the edits of the other users. But this one is interested in nothing but sharing his own point of view. Belomaad (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Only two reverts and not very recent. If this continues more regularly, without any discussion on the talk page, this can be reconsidered. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

User:DTSheikh reported by User:SheriffIsInTown (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has been engaging in an edit war on this article for several months. They periodically return to revert it to their preferred version. I initiated a discussion on the article's talk page to address the issue, and another user, User:Saqib, suggested a resolution. I accepted this third opinion, but the user in question continues to edit war without participating in the talk. Previously, they engaged in similar behavior as an IP, and once the article was protected, they resumed as DTSheikh. Despite being familiar with the edit-warring policy and having received warnings from User:Untamed1910 on another article, their actions remain disruptive. They return after some time to revert various articles to their preferred versions. Their behavior indicates that they are WP:NOTHERE, as they also used unencyclopedic language and engaged in an edit war on Pervez Musharraf. Further warnings are unlikely to be effective. I am reporting them for general long-term edit-warring behavior and not for violation of three-revert rule. <b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b> &#124; <b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b> &#124; 16:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also left a CTOPS notice on the talk page, since the article is under a long semi per ARBIPA. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

User:TheProEditor11 reported by 2409:4073:4E39:D390:658F:4C46:47CF:ACFC (Result: Range of reporter blocked for 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

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

Comments:

Edit warring by overlooking Wikipedia policies. The user disregards WP:NOTDIRECTORY by adding excessive listings, much of which is largely unsourced as well, with remaining poorly sourced with blogs like legodesk.com. Furthermore, the user adds fictitious references to make it look like it has been sourced, which does not even support the vast majority of the original research. Interestingly, the article itself fails WP:GNG. The user treats this article as a directory rather than as an encyclopedic article. 2409:4073:4E39:D390:658F:4C46:47CF:ACFC (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * My question to you is you can remove the uncited data but why are you removing every data/blanking out it?? There are several things which are cited with very reliable sources like the sources from official government website, news agencies like The Hindu, Amar Ujala, Times of India which are not only nationally but internationally accepted?? That's why, I also reported you in my previous noticeboard edit. TheProEditor11 (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You have even removed the cited titular things which should always be part of encyclopedia like "Gazetted appointment", "ordinary/extraordinary notifiations", departmental details, publisher, authority, etc LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Some are cited by official Acts (Indian Laws) too. You have removed pay commission clarifications, differentiation between Group A and Group B Gazetted, etc.. TheProEditor11 (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you, in your reversion, has written Notaries as gazetted.. Recheck it, Notaries are never gazetted although there appointments are posted in official gazette. Check Notaries Act, 1952 TheProEditor11 (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My request to you again is don't edit war and DON'T REMOVE CITED THINGS (I already told you some important citations of it). TheProEditor11 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, TheProEditor11 publicly reveals that his name is Sanatan Kumar Sinha, who is a guitarist, YouTuber, and belongs to the Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha caste. This goes in line with User:Sanatan Kumar Sinha who has the same description, who was once blocked for self-promotion. Both started by editing Anand Kumar. Additionally, editor ANJANBANIKAGARTALA may or may not be related, similar self-promotion, edited Anand Kumar, and was active between the above two editors timeframe. TheProEditor11 was previously engaged in promotion of his own caste -, .--2409:4073:4E39:D390:658F:4C46:47CF:ACFC (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Duhh!! I publicly reveal that my name is Sanatan Kumar Sinha but I also accept that I am not affiliated with the User:Sanatan Kumar Sinha and that additional editor ANJANABANIAGARTALA. That might be coincidence that editing starter was Anand Kumar because I edit on vast topics. That allegation on me that I promoted my own caste is completely baseless. I added the particular subcaste Ambastha to it which I had less knowledge at that time which was also later reverted by Respected Ekdalian, whom I consider as my Wiki guru and only due to him, I started to know about the value of references to articles, which can be clearly seen in my talk page!! If you can see then look into it that I have more than 1300 genuine edits which I did in a time span of more than one year because I edit Wiki in my free time! TheProEditor11 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I openly invite the checkusers, IP checkers etc to look into my IP and the IP and details of those two users, with whom, I have no affiliations at all.. TheProEditor11 (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not from Bihar, I don't have channel named Sanatan's Learning House. I have joined YouTube on 05th of July 2020. I invite every checkuser, administrator to verify it. TheProEditor11 (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Special:contributions/2409:4073:4E00:0:0:0:0:0/40 blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Hbzbmb reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1231706924 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1231706527 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1231706494 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1231706413 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 5)  "No reason to remove additional useful information of quotas."
 * 6)  "Unnecessary and unexplained edit"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 1231338736 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 8)  "/* Competitors  and Quotas*/"
 * 9)  "/* Competitors and Quotas */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1231338736 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Competitors  and Quotas*/"
 * 3)  "/* Competitors and Quotas */"
 * 1)  "/* Competitors and Quotas */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on India at the 2024 Summer Olympics."
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on India at the 2024 Summer Olympics."
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on India at the 2024 Summer Olympics."

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

Comments: This user has been warned for previous disruptive editing and  Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In general, multiple consecutive edits that are uninterrupted by anyone (i.e. a series of consecutive edits) are considered to be one edit for the purpose of WP:3RR. For that reason, I don't see a 3RR violation per se, but I do see what appears to a form of plain edit warring. I am unhappy that there is limited discussion from the respondent, who made the initial bold edit that has been contested in this dispute. Please self-revert your contested changes pending discussion on the talk page, in line with the standard guidance relating to the Bold-revert-discuss editing framework, and please engage in discussion on the relevant article's talk page when your edits are contested. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have replied to your message on the talk page, explaining the issue. I agree with the value of discussion when edits are contested. In this case, User:Sportsfan 1234 removed useful information that added value to the page and which was added by another user. This removal was done without any explanation. Therefore, I restored the useful information (added by a third user) explaining that it was useful and that it was being removed by User:Sportsfan 1234 without any discussion. User:Sportsfan 1234's response (from the very post) was not to engage in any discussion but to tell me that my editing rights might be removed. Hbzbmb (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For sake of posterity, I am linking your reply, which appears to have been at your user talk page rather than the article's talk page. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 06:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * per discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

User:ZipthatChop reported by User:Cookiemonster1618 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 

Diffs of the new user's reverts: 





Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Indirect attacks by calling me a 'Yoruba tribalist' for reverting their edits at the Hausa talk page

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

This User has been continuing to add unsourced information and remove citation links and disambiguation links at the Hausa people page after multiple warnings on their talk page. It is likely that they are also a sockpuppet account of another IP user whom I reverted their edit for adding the same unsourced information. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

User:62.28.104.240 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Page blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Previous user erased names for no reason. Links to Jonathan Drori (Michael Drory, and thomas Drory:"
 * 2)  "Previous Edit Summary was stopped mid-sentence. Previous user erased people with no reason even though they followed Wiki guidelines. A link to Jonathan Drori (https://jondrori.co.uk/biography/) Michael Drory (https://www.cdw.com/content/cdw/en/about/overview/our-leadership/michael-drory.html) and Thomas Drory (https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/crime-broadsides/catalog/46-990081198110203941). As can be seen, this surname does not only relate to people who have Jewish or Israeli heritage."
 * 3)  "Again, noted. Now the names are not mentioned under the 'notable people' list. Hence, according to Wikipedia rules 8as also mentioned prior by another user) there is no reason to take them off."
 * 4)  "Noted. A link that directs to those people has been added. Again, mentioning only people who are Israeli or have Israeli/Jewish heritage is misleading, as not every person with this surname falls under that category."
 * 5)  "Previous comment of other user noted; other names restored too. Just because someone doesn't have a wiki page doesn't mean they are not notable, and just because someone does have a wiki page doesn't mean they are. Listing only names of Israelis is misleading and gives the impression that it´s only a surname that only Israelis have or that exist in Israel, which isn´t the case (a.k.a Jonathan Drori, thomas Drory)"
 * 6)  "Addition of Thomas Drory"
 * 7)  "Typo edit"
 * 1)  "Addition of Thomas Drory"
 * 2)  "Typo edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Adding inappropriate entries to lists on Drori."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Drori."
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Drori."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is either unaware or ignoring talk page messages. Frankly, they've also had the list notability policy explained to them very clearly and are simply ignoring it, but I figured it would be better to bring it here than to try to handle this unilaterally. AntiDionysius ( talk ) 16:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * from the article in question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Lightningwhitefox reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Hanni (singer)."
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Hanni (singer)."
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has been given warnings but continues to be disruptive. <b style="color:black; font-family:Garamond">Btspurplegalaxy</b> <b style="color:blue">💬</b> <b style="color:#9D9E9E">🖊️</b> 08:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You're the one who is unconstructive. The reference is misleading and is false. Hanni Pham can not have dual citizenship as she was born in Australia and can only obtain one citizenship. She can not be a dual national with Vietnam, as she doesn't have the Vietnam passport. https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/estimates/sup_1516/Treasury/answers/SBT148-150_Ludwig_Attachment.pdf
 * in 2004 when she was born. The law only states that she can be an Australian citizenship.
 * Where is your evidence that she has Vietnamese nationality or ever lived there. Nationality means you are a citizen of that country. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't even discuss this over talk but just revert my changes calling it warnings and distruptive when you don't even discuss it. You have no evidence that she is dual national. The article is a opinion piece and doesn't prove she is dual national. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also left a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ric36 reported by User:GSK (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1232074161 by GSK (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Development */"
 * 1)  "/* Development */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Grand Theft Auto VI."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

While I agree the edits were disruptive, I think it's important to note that this edit (the third one listed above) was not a revert—so this was definitely edit warring (and poor communication), but not yet WP:4RR. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 22:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

, Special:Diff/1232093236 seems to imply that you understand the issue and will not continue to revert; is this correct? Would you mind taking a moment to describe what made you revert repeatedly earlier / what changed? Thank you very much in advance! &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. It seems like other users felt like I used some unnecessary wording in the article. While my edits were subtle they were still used as disruptive and unneeded for the article. Ric36 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. If you would still like to make the same edit, please start a discussion on the article's talk page instead. See WP:Dispute resolution for details and further advice about such conflicts. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Salibou reported by User:Cookiemonster1618 (Result: Page-blocked 1 week)
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:  Claims they 'Think there are no Zakhawa people in Libya', when the cited sources show that there are ethnic Zaghawa people in Libya.

Comments:

This User has been removing sourced information at the Zaghawa people for a few days now and has been engaging in an edit war. When I reverted their edit the second time I gave them a warning on their talk page but they continued to remove the information. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Page block from the article in question., it would help to add a citation that does not have a dead url. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Firefangledfeathers you said the citation link for the Zaghawa population in Libya is dead but it is still working. It is likely that you couldn't view it because either your not subscribed to Ethnologue or your internet is bad. It is still working though. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. If you're able to access the source, it would help if you could briefly quote—in the citation template—the part that supports the Libyan population. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont know how to add it so I'll give you the direct quote and you can add it. Here it is: "User Population: 9,400 in Libya (2020)." Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User:SojournerJim reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: indefinite partial block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid obvious bias. Wikipedia content should be neutral, clear, and encyclopedic."
 * 2)  "Blatant POV issues. Activists misrepresenting the facts."
 * 3)  "Added citations and proof texts. Corrected vandalism by previous author."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "escalated NPOV warning and 3rr warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* July 24 edits */ new section"

Comments:

Obviously problematic content, saying for example "For all questions such as this, the supreme guide in Christianity is the Bible. Do not trust what people on the internet say ABOUT the Bible, go straight to the source (the Bible) to see for yourself what it has to say!" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely from the Christianity and homosexuality article. PhilKnight (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have also added a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Thebestforever210 reported by User:Nswix (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Sources state he is 'the greatest mma fighter of all time' and is ranked so. Now stop changing and reverting changes that have cites and sources or I'll ask for you to have a mark."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1232453329 by Nswix (talk)"
 * 3)  "The sources cite him as the greatest. Leaving it as the greatest. Not 'one of' every outlet calls him the greatest."
 * 4)  "Every Source lists him as the greatest MMA artist of all time, no reason to not give him that same credit here."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All his edits are changing pages from 'one of the greatest' to the much more subjective 'greatest ever'. Nswix (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

SEE! Now he's lying, I wrote 'Jon Jones is regarded as the greatest of all time' I didn't write 'Greatest ever'. Also, I provided sources, so now I changed it to 'Widely regarded as the greatest of all time' which is true, now I provided sources and This guy keeps changing what is stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebestforever210 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Continuing to edit war after responding to a noticeboard report about it is... unusual. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Karkafs Desiderium reported by User:Aintabli (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "undid 4 edits by "24.133.65.44". This article doesnt claim Kurdistan is a state. You did not "fix grammer" you deleted the Kurdish name, clear vandalism. Go to the Talk page on Mentioning Kurdistan here if you want to lay out your counter-arguments."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1232507963 by CodeTalker (talk) I have opend a section in the Talk page on mentioning Kurdistan in this article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1232505801 by Yerevantsi (talk) How are these three different sources not reliable? Kurdistan or Greater Kurdistan is according to its own Wikipedia article; "[A] Region of West Asia with a historical Kurdish presence", and Nothern Kurdistan or Turkish Kurdistan is according to its own article; "[The] Kurdish inhabited area of Turkey". Please tell me how I missused these terms. Thx."
 * 4)  "Undid vandalism, the Kurdish name was removed from the top section with all mention of Kurdistan and the Armenian Highland being removed aswell. I guess a turkish nationalist?"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Long-term edit-warring is not limited to this page but also Lake Van and others. Let me know if I should add those diffs as well, but they are easily visible through the revision history of these pages. Aintabli (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I attempted to resolve the dispute on the articles talk page:
 * 03:02, 4 July 2024 - Opened discussion on mentioning Kurdistan Karkafs Desiderium (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Sol505000 reported by User:SchroCat (Result:48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:35, 4 July 2024
 * 2) 16:28, 4 July 2024
 * 3) 22:02, 4 July 2024
 * 4) 22:09, 4 July 2024]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (subsequently deleted)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte

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

Comments:

This is no edit warring, at least not on my part - the editor has been repeatedly notified of an already existing, well-established consensus at MOS:DIAPHONEMIC and Help:IPA/English. Therefore, their behavior is a deliberate choice. It is on them to try to change the already-existing consensus on the appropriate talk pages. Sol505000 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course you’ve edit warred! See WP:3RRNO, which are the only allowed exemptions for breaking 3RR. Blindly claiming you’re in the right isn’t among the list. There is a talk page where things should be discussed: you have ignored it and tried to issue diktats in edit summary, which is a poor way of communicating. The MOS is a flexible set of guidelines, not the Ten Commandments to be slavishly followed, particularly when there is good reason. Arrogantly stamping your preferred choice and then edit warring to retain it is sub standard. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC) (addendum: Just as a note to admins: I am aware that I have also edit warred, although I stopped at 3 reversions and do not intend to breach 3RR. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC))
 * Clear 3RR violation in a content dispute.-- Ponyo bons mots 21:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

== User:Adelbeighou, User:2A02:8071:64D0:7900:3965:A375:34BD:A3C0 (also known by other IPs) reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: User behind 2a00:20:d005:c3bb::/64 blocked for 1 year) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

(Some of the edit summaries also indicate there may be a broader CTop issue at play)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is a messy one. It is a two-sided edit war, the other side being a multi-IP user who is, based on their edit summaries, clearly well aware of the rules against this behaviour. There are far too many reverts by them to link to comprehensively, but a quick scroll through the article revision history makes it obvious which anon edits are by this user - they revert Adelbeighou's edits, and have a consistent tone of edit summary. A few examples:

This anon user did make some attempt to discuss the issue on both the article talk page and Adelbeighou's talk page, but in those two venues and in their edit summaries they have engaged in repeated personal attacks - and they kept reverting despite their knowledge of the rule.

Adelbeighou has claimed in some edit summaries that this IP user is evading an existing ban, but I have not found where this is meant to have taken place, nor did Adelbeighou seek outside intervention at any point (even after receiving an edit warring warning containing explanation on how to do so).

-- AntiDionysius ( talk ) 21:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This may be about and possibly more blocks. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahh, it being a rangeblock was probably what tripped me up when I was looking for it. AntiDionysius  ( talk ) 23:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, these are tricky to find. Took me a while to find that block, and there may have been more. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The user behind 2a00:20:d005:c3bb::/64 is to prevent further harassment. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Michalis1994 reported by User:D.S. Lioness (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours, reportee warned)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff] no, is experienced user

Comments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Niki_(Greek_political_party)&diff=prev&oldid=1232627940
 * . DSL breached 3RR and has previously been warned about edit warring. M1994 is still new enough that they should have gotten a warning, which I'll deliver soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Newpicarchive reported by User:TheWikiholic (Result: Warned user(s))
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: #
 * 1)

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

Comments:

This user is continuing to restore his version even though it was reverted by two different users.— TheWikiholic (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, why are you filing a report 7 hours after your warning and 15 hours after the user's latest edit? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was late night here, and I couldn't file a report while he was engaged in edit warring. The user has already made four reverts of edits from two different editors within 5 to 6 hours. I'm sure he would have continued if the article didn't reflect his version. TheWikiholic (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification., thoughts? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I only updated Beyoncé's total certification worldwide on List of best-selling music artists. Yes, there's an error regarding U.S. certification and it has been fixed but user TheWikiholic kept reverting my contribution back to the outdated version. He also accusing Beyoncé's record label faking her numbers without a proof/source-- It seems like there is a personal vendetta against the artist, doesn't it? WP:NPOV Furthermore, they were adamant about referencing a chart blog such as Chartmasters(dot)org in their argument, despite the fact that this particular chart blog is not considered a credible source on Wikipedia because the blog's methodology does not provide any indication of the source of the figures per WP:BADCHARTSAVOID. Unexpectedly, they started to gaslight me on my talk page about the edit-war warning that they were the ones who had caused. Newpicarchive (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have already updated the UK certifications of all the 120 artists on the list on May 17, 2024. Since then BPI has only updated certifications equal to 140,000 units. But this editor has added certifications equal to 11M units. BPI only awarded certifications equal to 33M units to Beyonce as of May 17, 2024 since her debut as a solo artists in the mid 2000's, but this user has added one third of her total to this tally. When we pointed out this he was refusing to get the point and showing a link to German Wikipedia as a source. Sony Music is the record label of Beyonce. Record labels are known to inflating record sales to promote their artist and there is a consensus to not use labels as source, and we are not using the record labels as a source for any artists on that list. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , accusations of a "personal vendetta" or even "vandalism" are inappropriate and likely incorrect. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources without directly accusing any primary source of lying; over 20 years of encyclopedia/community experience have shown that secondary sources are generally more reliable than primary ones about most subjects. Relying on reputable interpretations from secondary sources with editorial oversight avoids misinterpretation of primary sources by individual Wikipedia users.
 * In any case, edit warring is disruptive even if you are right. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * because your negative claim has no source/proof, then what it is?? I don't even mentioned the word "Vandalism" at all here but You're the one that brought it up here and playing a victim. If the shoe fits, wear it. Newpicarchive (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why you keeps reverting my edit TheWikiholic?? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1232680476&oldid=1232532865&markasread=319012718&markasreadwiki=enwiki&title=List_of_best-selling_music_artists the update for Beyoncé's total certifications worldwide is already correct! You're the one who should be reported here because you keep vandalizing the page just because it doesn't fit your bias/narrative. Newpicarchive (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * TheWikiholic's edits are very obviously not vandalism. If you continue to label them that way, you'll be blocked for personal attacks. Keep using the talk page; if your edits are so good that you consider reversions vandalistic, it should be easy to convince other editors and build consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * LLet's take a look at Brazil certification (Pro-Música Brasil for instance, source: https://pro-musicabr.org.br/home/certificados/?busca_artista=Beyonce&busca_tipo_produto=&busca_tipo_certificado=&busca_pela_gravadora=&busca_ano=
 * International
 * Gold: 30,000
 * Platinum: 60,000
 * Diamond: 250,000
 * She has sold a total amount of 7,7M certifications in Brazil, the same amount of what I have updated. Additionally, that source (Irish Independent) stating 160m sold is dated April 15th, 2016, which is actually pre-Lemonade. Lemonade was released on April 23rd, 2016. Considering she released 3 studio albums, 1 soundtrack album, live album and another album with the Carters and various singles since that article was published, i would argue the article is outdated and not particularly relevant as a source. Newpicarchive (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

User: Belomaad reported by User:Albertatiran (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Recent edits by are, in their entirety, drawn from partisan and polemical sources that do not meet the WP:RELIABILITY criteria for Wikipedia articles, especially for articles about the history of Islam. In particular, none of the books cited by Belomaad are published by publishers known for fact-checking. These sources include alsersj.net and Mir'at ul-oqul by the Shia jurist Muhammad Baqir Majlisi.

As a result, the content added by Belomaad repeatedly violates the principles of WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. In addition, there does not seem to be a WP:CONSENSUS for his/her edits and Belomaad has refused to investigate whether there is one.

All these issues were brought to Belomaad's attention on several occasions; see Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Ali and the recent edit history of the article. Another editor,, even shared academic sources, currently unused in the article, that could replace the unreliable ones introduced by Belomaad. All these have been to no avail as Belomaad seems only interested in forcefully and repeatedly inserting his/her sectarian POV into the article, over and over, ignoring other editors' advice. Please see the recent edit history for the developments. Separately, Iskandar323 and have raised some concerns about Belomaad's integrity in Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Ali and his/her responses suggest a flagrant ignorance about the mission of WP:WikiProject Islam. For instance, in one of his/her responses, Belomaad suggests that the article should largely reflect the the polemics of the majority rather than the academic findings of historians and Islamicists. (There is still room in the article for sectarian views when they are clearly labeled as such, e.g., a separate section about Shia views.) Albertatiran (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Charliehdb reported by User:The Herald (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rm source from FP Staff, per WP:ICTFSOURCES and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also Variety gives 7 days bo only, see the date published. Updated with latest source"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Jayanthkumar123 (talk): The source may not say, but its the collection given makers"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Jayanthkumar123 (talk): Rm collection from makers"
 * 4)  "/* Highest-grossing films */ fix"
 * 5)  "/* Highest-grossing films */ rm collection from makers"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of highest-grossing Indian films."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of highest-grossing Indian films."

Comments:

Editwarring and reverts after warnings and discussions. Cherry picking the desired source and not willing to add other reliable source that describe the box office collections. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC) <ul><li>Also edit warring at List of highest-grossing Telugu films.</li></ul><span id="The_Herald:1720202442656:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard/Edit_warring" class="FTTCmt"> — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

User:58.97.224.20 reported by User:Ae245 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1232976845 by Ae245 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1232975794 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1232932871 by Mean as custard (talk)"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Constant addition of promotional material. Ae245 (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

User: Vif12vf reported by User:Brikcity (Result: Both blocked)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly warned about edit warring and continues to do so on various different articles and templates. They have been a user for quite a while so their blatant disregard for the rules is quite alarming. They have been reverting my contributions without cause or explanation, and it is clear that it is consistent behavior. I warned the user to stop twice and they deleted the warning message from their talk page
 * Both blocked by, Vif12vf for 3 months and Brikcity for 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Vraxxthelord reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reduced bias, as brief period of decline cannot be used to describe only 2 films performance. neutral viewpoint"
 * 2)  "Reduced bias, cleaned up content"
 * 3)  "Reduced bias, cleaned up content. fixed grammer as "went on to play a dual role". listed Saaho as a notable film due to its profitability"
 * 1)  "Reduced bias, cleaned up content. fixed grammer as "went on to play a dual role". listed Saaho as a notable film due to its profitability"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps edit warring, apparently "reducing bias", while introducing bias and puffery. Doesn't abide by WP:BRD, has a histpry of edit-warring and got blocked multiple times. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Put CTOPS notice on article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Hbzbmb reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1232998393 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1232998294 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1232998245 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1232998337 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1232998083 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid destructive amendments to remove Quotas. Medals decided per Quotas and not Athletes."
 * 1)  "Undid destructive amendments to remove Quotas. Medals decided per Quotas and not Athletes."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User was warned one week ago here. I brought it to this noticeboard here. The user was asked to revert their edits and contribute to the discussion on the talk page. Its been a week since, and there was no contribution on the talk page by Hbzbmb. I have since made those edits to the article, which now have since been reverted again without any discussion by Hbzbmb. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it would help if you engaged in a civilised manner without making false and misleading assertions. Your previous complaint was declined.
 * Declined per discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is after User:Red-tailed_hawk had explained to you:
 * "In general, multiple consecutive edits that are uninterrupted by anyone (i.e. a series of consecutive edits) are considered to be one edit for the purpose of WP:3RR. For that reason, I don't see a 3RR violation per se, but I do see what appears to a form of plain edit warring."
 * I had provided the following explanation: "Thank you. I have replied to your message on the talk page, explaining the issue. I agree with the value of discussion when edits are contested. In this case, User:Sportsfan 1234 removed useful information that added value to the page and which was added by another user. This removal was done without any explanation. Therefore, I restored the useful information (added by a third user) explaining that it was useful and that it was being removed by User:Sportsfan 1234 without any discussion. User:Sportsfan 1234's response (from the very post) was not to engage in any discussion but to tell me that my editing rights might be removed. Hbzbmb (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)"
 * You are the one who then reverted the constructive edits by a third-party user to revert them. You need to be more constructive and collaborative on this site. But more importantly, perhaps, if you wish to raise an objection, at least do it through proper arguments rather than through falsehoods. Hbzbmb (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * . This is the previous report and since that previous report there has been no attempt by Hbzbmb to use the article's talk page to discuss the content. Both editors should focus on using the talk page rather than constantly reverting. it might help to be a little more specific than this as to what you mean by Per WP:OLYMPICS Standard; looking at WikiProject Olympics I don't see any reference to quotas.  Aoidh (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:37.220.113.172 reported by User:142.189.149.94 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 20:34, 6 July 2024
 * 2) Revision as of 18:41, 6 July 2024
 * 3) Revision as of 17:19, 5 July 2024
 * 4) Revision as of 20:01, 3 July 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:

He makes changes without commenting and without giving any reason why. His changes are ethnocentric, he wipes out Persian, Turkish, and Jewish identities that use the Ney, which is ridiculous with anyone familiar with regions musical traditions. There is no etymological evidence of the Ney being anything other than Iranian/Persian. His own comments were at the beginning claiming that the page was "Citing sources, correcting and retracting the sabotages that occurred in the article". The source he cites is a blog with no citations of its own, while a quick google search even has the MET referring to it as an Iranian instrument. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/504821

Please revert it to either RoyalCream's entry or my latest revision, or as it suits Wiki standards. Please forgive me for any mistakes I've made, I'm not quite familiar with Wiki formatting yet.
 * by User:Daniel Quinlan for two weeks. - Aoidh (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Both editors blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The reported user refuses to engage properly in a discussion on the talk page, where an IP and me both disagreed with their edits. Also, another editor also reverted a similar edit few days ago. Despite the disagreement of 3 editors, the reported user keeps editing the article on shaky ground and refuses to follow WP:CON, WP:BRD and WP:WEIGHT. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for handling this case swiftly. Best. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  01:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * for edit warring. Aoidh (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:78.82.30.40 reported by User:BalaM314 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * Aoidh (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Bravehm reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
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
 * 6) 15:20, 7 July 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Bravehm did it again - more manipulative long term edit warring. After their block expired (see their previous report here ), they resumed edit warring and their dishonest/manipulative edit summaries ("Please do not change the location of the contents", they're the ones making the chance though...). This user has countless times engaged in this type of dishonesty/manipulation (eg ), which I think shows that they are WP:NOTHERE. Granted this time they reverted much less, but it's still very concerning. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bbb23! HistoryofIran (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:47:4D01:3580:69FC:A34F:9804:7A85 reported by User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (Result: /64 blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Although this article is blocked the IP engaged in edit wars with other users, it even went to far as to create an account named Userace1117o engage in an edit war with an another IP SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * has blocked ., the report is a bit hard to parse. I had to guess that the "o" at the end of the username is a typo, the specific reported IPv6 address has last edited over 5 days ago, the third link is not a diff, the page is semi-protected et cetera.
 * /64 &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ao192 reported by User:ShovelandSpade (Result: One blocked, one warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [User talk:Ao192]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [User talk:Ao192]

Comments:

User has made multiple POV and borderline nationalist edits, a few users including me have warned him against his actions but he continues, if we look at his talk page, its riddled with warnings by other editors on these pages and he doesn't listen, continues to disrupt. Whats more disturbing is a particular comment he made on an edit where apparently it was ok to decapitate people and put them in mass graves, (This happened in the Battle of Agios Dometios talk page, Ive never reported anyone before so I have no idea how to link and all properly but here it is in quotes) "Decapitating a dead body and throwing it into a grave isnt a war crime either. They atleast had the decency to make a mass grave, they could've just let them to rot in the open.", he said this in his edit on July 6 2024. I tried communicating this to him in his talk page, instead he blanked me and went and reverted my edit again on Agios Dometios. He has since issued a rebuttal saying things like "The Greeks were begging and crying to the United Nations for a ceasefire, which the dumb turks agreed on...", "I havent said "cutting heads off" is ok, mutilating a dead corpse is not a serious war crime is what i've said...", at best, the immaturity of the user in these topics warrants at least a topic ban and as just seen, he has previously been blocked by User:ToBeFree for disruptive editing.ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Im just going to reply to you the same way i did in the DMs:
 * - "1) As to the 498 dying in the invasion, the only source that claims that is the Turkish government which is an unreliable source in and of itself when it gets to Cyprus, the numbers by some have been estimated to be between 3,500 - 6,000 so that whole argument is moot."
 * Yes while that is a Turkish claim, Multiple 3rd party accounts back this claim up, putting TAF casualties to be 498. https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/Books-by-topic/MCUP-Titles-A-Z/Phase-Line-Attila/ Like this one here. Id love to see where you got the "6,000 dead". and if you are talking about civilian casualties, then we can figure greek losses to be around 12,000 or 6,000 aswell.
 * - "2) ELDYK was 950 people at the begining of the invasion not at the end."
 * Considering ur sources say 105 mainland greek soldiers died in the war, with 30 of them being members of the 1st raider squadron or whatever its just at around 900 then, no wonder i have written 4000-4500 there, its not exact.
 * - "3) As to Manolis Bikakis, it is not only the Greek ministry of defense (Which until recently never officially recognised actions on Cyprus), there are multiple eyewitness accounts from different battalions in Cyprus which all make the same claims about Bikakis, the only one disputing it, is the Turkish government (No surprise there)."
 * Show me a single non partisan, non greek and a 3rd party source telling this, plus the "multiple eyewitness accounts from different battalions in cyprus." There isnt even a single page made about manolis in Turkish, let alone the government for christ sake.
 * - "4) As to the Mongols claim, it is historically true so again I dont see where your issue is."
 * add it into the main invasion of cyprus then. Mongol invasion of cyprus.. The same article has "But the defenders of the camp stand firm and send the souls of the agarine dogs back to Allah." written. Agarine dogs.
 * - "5) If you think cutting off heads and throwing them in mass graves is ok because in your own words "They atleast had the decency to make a mass grave, they could've just let them to rot in the open" is something that makes me think you should maybe not be editing on wikipedia if this is your line of reasoning."
 * I havent said "cutting heads off" is ok, mutilating a dead corpse is not a serious war crime is what i've said, neither are mass graves of dead enemy troops. Infact putting your enemies into mass graves is a sign of respect instead of leaving them to rot in the open. Which in my opinion is justified after all the Greek and Cypriot troops have done against the Turkish Cypriots peacefully living on the island (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Christmas_(1963) ) Again, its just a claim made by "eldyk members"
 * All the pages ive seen you in are using greek sources only (some a part of the government), im yet to see a single 3rd party account thats in a foreign language.
 * Your 4th sentence clearly shows who youre biased towards and what you are. Wikipedia is a place of original research and objective people, not for the likes of you. If you continue this type of behaviour your account is probably gonna get IP-suspended and all the pages you have worked on nominated for a deletion.
 * Battle of Agios Dometios
 * - "600+ Turks were killed"
 * Already disproven considering only 498 had died with the link i have just sent.
 * https://www.anixneuseis.gr/%CE%B7-%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%87%CE%B7-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%83-%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%BA%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%B1%CF%83/ This link here also says only 60 Turkish troops were killed or wounded by greek troops A. Dometios.
 * - "Only 83 Greek soldiers were killed"
 * An additional 60 were killed as the same reference says above, totaling a number of 143. The same link above also says "dozens" of Greek soldiers were captured by Turkish troops.
 * - "6000 turkish troops were present"
 * Again, an unreliable partisan source, which refers to turks as mongols and agarine dogs, claiming this but we can still put it as an extra "Greek Claim"
 * - "1850 greek troops were present" Ive read every link there, not a single one mentions that. Putting all the units present like i said, 1 battalion is roughly around 1000 soldiers, ELDYK totaling up to 1000 and a squadron consists of around 50 to 500 men. we can roughly estimate the size around 3500 to 4500.
 * - "It was a greek victory"
 * The Greeks were begging and crying to the United Nations for a ceasefire, which the dumb turks agreed on and the ceasefire happened right before Turkish forces properly setting an attack on Nicosia and capturing it, which includes Agios Dometios, thus resulting the Greek victory on A. Dometios, not because they bravely fought against the invading "agarine dogs", it was because of the forced UN ceasefire which halted Turkish advance. The turks also captured a bunch of fortified locations and positions https://www.protothema.gr/greece/article/558431/elduk/ including the grammar house and the ELDYK camp, plus half of nicosia, i dont know how those doesnt sound like a victory to you.
 * Also half of agios dometios was captured by turkey before, again, due to the UN ceasefire, they could not capture the rest of the town.
 * - "Why are there so many "greek media claims"?"
 * Because every single article used as reference and as a "reliable" source happens to be greek which obviously
 * Whats so borderline nationalist about these? I havent used a SINGLE Turkish source while all the references in the page is made up of greek sources Ao192 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * also my opinion on what the turkish soldiers do against greek soldiers literally doesnt matter as it has no effect on the page itself. yet you tried to get me banned for my opinions about turkish soldiers mutilating greek soldiers, instead of the "disruptive" editing i've done on the page LoL. Ao192 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Gonna let admins deal with you cause not only have I tried youre just digging yourself deeper holes. "My opinion on what the turkish soldiers do against greek soldiers..." alone isnt a good start. ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One blocked, one warned. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

User:FellowMellow reported by User:Fm3dici97 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

The user constantly reverted modifications to the page, even those meant to reach a compromise, proposed irrational arguments in the attempted discussion in the talk page not rally meant to reach any meaningful agreement with the other users, and vandalized the main table in the page by adding a column which is absent in all the equivalent pages for European Parliament groups and was only functional to supporting their changes. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * please explain to me why MZH2020, Braganza, and  IIiVaiNiII were not reported, when they engaged in similar activity. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you're the only one who's willingly ignoring the information provided by the highest autority over electoral affairs, the electoral commission, to push his own changes and that refuses any attempt of compromise (like Braganza's idea to list Turek as independent). Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That is false information. I am not willingly ignoring the information provided by the highest autority over electoral affairs. I have persistently encouraged talk page use (and you can see in the edit history) and if most agree with Braganza’s option, I will not revert it. However at the time of revert, there was no consensus. @Fm3dici97 is not being truthful and is not interested in reporting the other violations.
 * If I wasn’t interested and was really willingly ignoring information, then I wouldn’t be engaged in the talk page, yet I am. The accusation is baseless. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "he is not at an independent." Braganza (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * check this edit @Braganza. It was restored after consensus was agreed on your idea. FellowMellow (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was not "restored after consensus was agreed" since there's been barely any discussion about that yet. It was an attempt at reaching a compromise that was immiediately reverted by you (and when I say immediately I mean in less than 5 minutes), and that you restored only after this discussion had been started and that your behaviour towards the talk page and towards the aforementioned compromise attempt had been highlighted. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. You are not being truthful once again. It was restored after most users agreed with @Braganza‘s idea of using independent. You are saying that I wish all choices that are made by me to stay as is. It’s not true. If I really wanted that, I wouldn’t be on the talk page.
 * Also you aren’t being truthful here either. "You restored only after this discussion had been started and that your behaviour towards the talk page and towards the aforementioned compromise attempt had been highlighted." That is false. After looking at the talk page, most user’s disagreed on how the edit on the table was placed. That is why @Braganza choice was restored on the page after it was reverted. That is called consensus. So you pay attention to your own behavior, as you are willingly allowing other user violations to slide. It was not restored after this discussion started. That is not why it was restored. You are lying on purpose. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also @Fm3dici97 is mistaken. He uses the word "irrational", however this is quite false. Instead of refusing to talk on the talk page, I have consistently spoken on the talk page and have gathered users to find compromise and consensus. The user is not being sincere and using words that are illegitimate such as "vandalized"
 * @Fm3dici97 has barely engaged in the talk page and jumped into conclusions, without any effort to even talk and provide input. My edits were not intended for vandalism purposes and he for some reason hasn’t reported the others users, also engaged in reverts. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I use the word irrational because engaging in multiple edits to add information in open contradiction with an official source and trying to justify those with sources whose vaildity is lower than that of an electoal body is, to me at least, an irrational behaviour. And the reason why I engaged with only a single message in the discussion in the talk page is because to me the focus to the discussion should be entirely different. If, between members A and B of a two-members electoral coalition, the electoral commission links the candidate with A, there's no discussion that has to be held about whether he's instead linked to B. However, as I specified in the talk page, there is the ground for a disucussion about how strong the ties of the candidate to A are, and if he should instead be considered as an indepedent candidate endorsed by A. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I can say I find it irrational behavior to accuse someone of things that aren’t true. I suppose I can make a similar report.
 * Also the example you bring up. It was reverted because consensus and compromise were not reached. After most users agreed with @Braganza‘s idea, I restored it, as most users liked that idea. That effectively contradicts your false claim, that I am editing without engaging with others users. Yet I am one of the most active on the talk page. I have engaged in similar discussions with the ideology and with the political position.
 * That’s how it works. If most agree with one over the other, then that’s what it will be. You are not being truthful. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's put things straight: you reverted Braganza's compromise attempt at 21:09, and you reverted it back at 21:45 because you claim "consensus had been reached in the meantime". During that time window, no comment has been added to the talk page regarding the "indepedent" status, so either your initial revert was unjstified and the consensus was already there, or the reason behind the second revert is made up. Furthermore, all the reverts linked in this edit warring date back to AFTER the discussion in the talk page had started: if you were really interested in that discussion as a mean to reach a compromise, you woudln't have kept reverting any change that disagreed with your version even while the discussion was still ongoing. Fm3dici97 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually the discussion is still ongoing. Your refusal to engage in the talk page and provide input of your own raises concerns. When I had reverted it (as you described), consensus was not reached (at least not when I saw it). When I went back to check about any further discussion, to me it seemed there was consensus (not by everyone, but by most users engaged in the discussion). That is why I restored @Braganza‘s edit. Neither one of your allegations are true (in terms of the reverts).
 * Also yet again, you are not being truthful here ("if you were really interested in that discussion as a mean to reach a compromise, you wouldn’t have kept reverting any change that disagreed with your version even while the discussion was still ongoing.") If I wasn’t interested in having a discussion and finding compromise, I would have repeatedly refuse to engage in the talk page. You would be correct in that instance and I would be wrong. However, that is not the case. My discussion that I have on the talk page (and still is ongoing) strongly, contradicts your allegations.
 * Also, I personally do not think it’s fair for me to have all of my preferred options in the article. I am perfectly aware of that, that will not always be the case. That is the reason why there is a talk page, which I have persistently engaged in. You, on the other hand, have barely engaged in it, which makes your allegations even more illegitimate. If most users agree with what I propose, then it should be on the article, if majority say no, then it shouldn’t be. Most users did not agree with the table I had proposed to resolve the dispute between two users. After most users said they were against the table, it has not been re-added ever since. Your arguments are untruthful. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also I would like to add, that the table that I proposed on the article has been reverted. As
 * most users do not agree with that table (based on the talk page), the table will not be used (since most users agree not to have it). @Fm3dici97 is not telling the truth that I am only seeking my own edits and don’t care about other user’s edits. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The extra 12 are for the fifth revert in that time. The material reverted does not have to be the same as all the other reverts. I will be putting a CTOPS notice on the talk page because it seems like this can come under ARBEE; everyone should be mindful of that next time (if you let there be one), especially in situations like this where discussion that really should have taken place on the article talk page or, better yet, some DR forum, took place here (Not that it seems likely to suddenly become productive, I agree—you need to get cooler heads in this, since you're not arguing about the article so much as you're arguing about the argument). Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User:L.S. WikiCleaner reported by User:Michalis1994 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Niki (Greek political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: L.S. WikiCleaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31 ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) [32 ]
 * 2) [33 ]
 * 3) [34 ]
 * 4) [35 ]
 * 5) [36 ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Removed by user [|[38]] Michalis1994 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The user Michalis is much more experienced than me on these pages(strange thing for a 15-days account) but i will try to say my truth and hopefully someone will read it.
 * I said many times to Michalis, I have no intention of accusing him to any adminstrator. My goal was to find a solution through the Talk page and that's what I did.Instead he is going on Adminstrators Talk Pages and begs them(?) to punish me.I made it clear that i didnt want him to get punished or something and i still dont.
 * He created an IP address to revert for 4th time so he would not break any edit rules (something that shows how experienced he is).He as Michalis already undo 3 times.
 * He was warned by an Adminstrator because he claimed I was vandalizing.Instead of apologizing in my Talk page as requested by the administrator, he left a message on my page calling me a vandal again.
 * Also there are quite a few complaints about the way he editting articles.And some warnings to be more constructive on Talk Pages.
 * Im not even going not to talk about the topic of our confrontation(if im not asked to), which has already been discussed on RFC and all the editors agreed with what I say (that the article is neutral), however, Michalis continues and changes it in his own way. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will not respond further to this issue, as my provided explanations and diffs are clear. The reported user shows no intention of finding middle ground. By the time the IP address appeared, L.S. had already reverted the article for the fourth time. I could have reported them then, but I chose not to. Now, after the fifth revert, they have returned to accuse me of actions I neither understand nor can rationalise. They have reverted the article five times and accused me of using an IP address without any evidence. Oh, and it's worth noting that the so-called "complaints" they refer to resulted in another user, who reported me, being blocked. Please see the section and judge for yourselves. Michalis1994 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me kindly add here that how even up to this moment as we speak im still waiting for his answer on the Talk Page:)
 * He obviously doesn't want to talk he just want me to get punished in order to...leave him alone editing(?) L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyone can see in this section
 * that the user is attempting to mislead others by claiming (with a smiley face) that I have not responded to their questions. However, I asked three times for them to provide diffs and specific sections they disagreed with after they reverted a 3,000-character edit that is fully backed and cited with reliable sources. I rest my case; this is simply meaningless and sad.
 * Michalis1994 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

User:WikiValidator01 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed MOS:MR. Removed misinformed reference: please edit and use exact wording from the reference without adding your opinion instead of reverting/undoing. Please try to edit with a neutral pov WP:NPOV .You are deleting a lot of other content."
 * 2)  "/* Career */ Added his success to his writing and references."
 * 3)  "Removed reference with a broken link."
 * 4)  "/* Career */ Updated with some reference links"
 * 5)  "This updated content offers a clearer and more accurate picture, thanks to a meticulous review of all sources and references. We've eliminated any ambiguity and misleading and biased information that might have existed before. Contributing to Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and all edits should be well-supported by reliable sources. Unintentional confusion can be avoided by ensuring proper citations. Intentionally misleading edits or unsubstantiated claims are a serious matter."
 * 6)  "Yes, the content I have updated is referenced from the source, and I'm just updating content based on the content you have copied here. But now you are truly vandalizing the content by pushing your POV WP:POVPUSH and trying to create defamation WP:LIBEL. Please respect Wikipedia's rules when you revert/update others' edits. Thanks."
 * 7)  "The content is from original reference, stop removing and vandalizing)"
 * 8)  "previous edit creates confusion."
 * 9)  "Removed unconfirmed information"
 * 1)  "previous edit creates confusion."
 * 2)  "Removed unconfirmed information"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Untitled section */you need to build consensus"
 * 2)  "/* Notability */Reply"

Comments:

SPA whose entire edit history is 7 consecutive reverts to remove well-referenced content at Nury Turkel, despite 7 warnings from 3 editors (incl. and ). — MarkH21talk 01:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Commenting as a fellow editor, this does look like edit warring behavior. I will note, though, that WP:BLPRESTORE may be relevant for this sort of thing. RFA (WP:GREL) is reporting about the resignation following a NOTUS report, so it's at least verifiable that the resignation was made after the allegation was made public. I haven't heard of NOTUS before, though the reliability of that group doesn't seem to be the most relevant part here. What respondent seems to be objecting to is that the allegation has not been substantiated, and it thus should be removed, which is something that might draw from the principle underlying WP:BLPCRIME. But that sort of reporting might be enough to overcome the presumption of "keep-the-alleged-crime-off-the-page", so it could go either way on the substance.In any case, this should be handled by talk page discussion rather than back-and-forth reverting. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Even aside from the content itself, the reported editor is ignoring the fact that three editors have reverted them. They are not engaging on the talk page in any meaningful way, only continuing to edit war their version, removing the references / adding unreferenced commentary while making blanket statements like Please edit and use exact wording from the reference without adding your opinion instead of reverting/undoing. Please try to edit with a neutral pov. — MarkH21talk 02:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the edit warring is disruptive, yes. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Indefinitely pblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ncnub reported by User:Czello (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1233536265 by Maurnxiao (talk) See comment on talk page, petered out discussion has offered personal opinions but zero reliable sources to justify change (because there are none) and has petered out with the consensus appearing against change."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1233503804 by Maurnxiao (talk) discussion  shows that there is no consensus for obviously ideologically motivated proposal by corbynite editors that goes against the unanimous consensus of reliable sources including recent ones (see the two recent sources that have been added to replace the old ones)"
 * 3)  "no consensus to sustain request by ideologically motivated editors to change position widely supported by all reliable sources, use updated sources"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1233540415 by Czello (talk) conenus reached to end discussion, talk page comment to explain why this discussion is so uniquely ideologically motivated with no substantive arguments or reliable sources to support change."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * There are only three reverts, as diff #3 above is the edit reverted to and not a revert itself. And it does seem like consensus at the talk page was in favor of deferring this discussion to January. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I added a CTOPS notice to the talk page per WP:CT/CID. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:181.115.138.87 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked for two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: So in you talk page i wrote about the need to include this. I want to know if it will be post if i include bibliography. It's a HUGE INSULT THAT YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THE BOLIVIAN COUP OF 2019!!!!! YOU ARE ABUSIVE"
 * 1)  "/* 2019 */ I included the coup of 2019 with many references"
 * 2)  "i added the coup of Bolivia of 2029 WITH REFERENCES OF PAGES OF NEWSPAPERS"
 * 3)  "/* 2019 */I add a needed comment because you say .. see the talk page before including Bolivia and in your talk page there is nothing about Bolivia.
 * 1)  "/* 2019 */I add a needed comment because you say .. see the talk page before including Bolivia and in your talk page there is nothing about Bolivia.
 * 1)  "/* 2019 */"
 * 2)  "/* 2019 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of coups and coup attempts."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The Bolivian coup of 2019 is not listed */ Reply"

Comments: Incivility and desire to right great wrongs doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Akmal94 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Indeffed from the page)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1233489706 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1233301676 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1233301676 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"

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

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

Comments:

User revert warring and keeps removing well sourced terms/content. Doesn't seem to be interested in WP:BRD, removed the warning message mentioning the same. Has a history of edit warring, apparent from the warning message in their t/p as well as blocks. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * from the page by . Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Sun45Raj and User:Sush150 reported by User:Warrenmck (Result: Both editors blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (recent, but more edits immediately after)

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

Comments:

Both Sun45Raj and Sush150 have been edit warring over the inclusion of a movie on this list for the last four days, resulting in far more than four reverts for both but only Sun45Raj has >4 edits in a 24 hour block of time recently, which feels a bit like a technicality here. I tried getting them to talk about it on the talk page because this is a topic I frankly know nothing about, but the edit warring has continued. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * from the article. While Sush responded, he did not indicate any willingness to stop. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:D510:5900:D005:EBB6:324F:FBD5 reported by User:House1090 (Result: /64 blocked for three years)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


 * User left this comment on my talk page, trying to get me to "understand". House1090 (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I suspect the user created the account KidMediaStuffFan. He has gone back to revert the changes again. Support would be greatly appreciated. House1090 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This range has a long history here, apparently. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! House1090 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Asarutheen reported by User:GraziePrego (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Minor Change"
 * 2)  "Make Sure that i've Been Trying to implement on True News on Wikipedia."
 * 3)  "Joseph Muscat Proved Himself in Court. So i just Removed Wrong Aligation From the Wikipedia Page For Credibility."
 * 4)  "Added Some Source that the Article Really Need about Malta"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated removal of sourced content, defiant on talk page despite attempts at resolving. GraziePrego (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

User:DeccanFlood reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: Blocked from article for a week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Not a violation of 3RR but the user has been engaging in a very long, drawn out edit war and is determined add the phrase "the Great" into the article lead without getting a consensus for it. Currently, the consensus is against the inclusion of such a title in the lead, as another editor has also objected to its inclusion in the talk page discussion. PadFoot (talk)
 * from article. It may have been a two-to-one consensus, but consensus there was, against using the title in the lede. Deccan is free to continue discussing this; perhaps it would benefit to bring more editors into the discussion and strengthen consensus, if that is possible. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The other editor joined in as an ambivalent commentator. The title was sourced thrice and removed on false grounds of being a recent addition which is proven false. It was not added by me but was present since 2022. You can view the original addition here: . It has been vetted and kept unchallenged by all subsequent editors and admins overseeing developments of the article. It is @PadFoot2008 who initiated the reversions on false grounds and not me. Please review your decision. There are no grounds to initiate consensus debates either, except disruption of the article building.
 * I recently showed the consensus debates initiated by @SKAG123 and @PadFoot2008 to turn Maratha Empire page into Maratha Confederacy and subsequently remove all traces of Maratha Empire from Wikipedia, also involved sham sockpuppets (3 out of 6 operated by a single vandal 1., 2., 3., propped against 5). More editors experienced in Indian history should be brought into the discussion, though there is absolutely no ground for a such a non-controversial aspect, which I must remind everyone, is sourced. DeccanFlood (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edits did not come under 3RRNO. Daniel Case (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Historyman1944 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle of Chosin Reservoir

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

Comments:

Persistent edit-warring by SPA. No breach of 3RR, but tiresome behaviour to impose their view. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Jack.bobo.786 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Jack.bobo.786 is edit warring to change the lead for Cyriac Abby Philips from "shares critical views of alternative medicine based on his findings and research" to "shares views of alternative medicine based on his feelings".

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC) initial edit
 * 2) 1:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reverted Hako9
 * 3) 05:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reverted Toddy1
 * 4) 11:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reverted Toddy1
 * 5) 02:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reverted Hako9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC), 19:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cyriac Abby Philips.

Warnings on user talk page about (1) unsourced changes and (2) wrongly marking their edits as minor: User talk:Jack.bobo.786

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 06:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments:


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Also added a CTOPS notice to talk page per WP:CT/CAM Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Aqua.107 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Note: this was posted in response to edit-warring behaviour on another article shortly before this)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Note: I've reported their wider history of edit-warring at WP:ANI (see archive) but it didn't get any attention. Their edit-warring has continued since then. R Prazeres (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, you can't "revert" an edit war. You can participate in it. You did so. Fortunately, this has been a while ago and the latest reverts are between  (who should provide clear edit summaries or use the talk page when reverting) and , the former of whom has stopped edit warring and the latter of whom has made far more reverts and taunted the others, leading me to the conclusion that their current inactivity is only because their preferred revision is online. If you want to make such decisions easier in the future, please follow proper dispute resolution next time. The essay WP:DISCFAIL is the most helpful advice I have seen about this so far. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

User:DivineWave reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added genetic data regarding harappan ancestry in present day indians along with multiple citations."
 * 2)  "Added genetic data regarding harappan ancestry in present day indians."
 * 3)  "Added the updated data regarding connection between the harappan ancestry and modern indian ancestry."
 * 4)  "I have updated latest genetic research and connection between harappan ancestry amd modern day populations."

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Vandalism warning. */"

Comments:

Persistently adding the same content without following WP:ONUS. Disagreeing views are labelled "vandalism". From a post on my talk page I suspect they might be a block-evading sock. Austronesier (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Firstly opened a talk page for vandalism as the Austronesier without any discussion, kept on removing the content which is peer reviewed paper and conducted study by Harvard medical school geneticist Dr. David reich and his collaborations with CCMB,Hyderabad and published genetic data of modern day south Asians. I asked him to discuss on talk page but he just attacking me which you can clearly see in our talk page named vandalism alert. He falls into the definition of vandalism. Kindly help us out. Thanks. DivineWave (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit-warring to the max and not willing to grasp what vandalism means:. –Austronesier (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Instead of attacking me with those words i suggest you to provide reliable source for your disgareements regarding your disagreements because this is official research which is being taught in educational institutions and acceptted by all scholars and it is peer reviewed. Research was done by Dr.David reich ,havard medical school scholar and geneticist along with CCMB,Hyderabad. Already i advised you to discuss on talk oage yet you are continuing attacking me instead of discussing with me and sharing your source. Kindky encourage fruitful discussions and dont use such strong language. Reporting will actually work against you .thanks. DivineWave (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:207:200:464D:E9D2:E19C:B77A:772C reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: /64 blocked from article for two weeks for repeated copyvio as well as edit warring)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1234040127 by Kanguole (talk) cite:Mark Alves https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358857488_Vietnamese_Language_History_Roots_and_Restructuring_VIDEO_httpswwwyoutubecomwatchvJyKWFm_TuZM is not a copyright violation in accordance to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 (learn what is a copyright infringement means and fair use means). Any excuses contradict to the rest of Wikipedia."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1233866004 by Kanguole (talk) Verbatim copy (?) Anything but better than authoritarianly getting rid of entire 2022 paper written in English by an English-speaking American professor, in a open English encyclopedia. No one shall stick with an flatty outdated 1912 source who used omitted word like annamite (n-w) ad infinitum"
 * 4)  "/* History */"
 * 5)  "/* Pure Vietnamese words */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1233866004 by Kanguole (talk) Verbatim copy (?) Anything but better than authoritarianly getting rid of entire 2022 paper written in English by an English-speaking American professor, in a open English encyclopedia. No one shall stick with an flatty outdated 1912 source who used omitted word like annamite (n-w) ad infinitum"
 * 2)  "/* History */"
 * 3)  "/* Pure Vietnamese words */"
 * 1)  "/* Pure Vietnamese words */"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Copyvio and edit-warring, including earlier as (same range as this one). — MarkH21talk 18:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * from article, due to the combination of edit warring, copyvio and attitude. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Maurice20111 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 24h for disruption)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I changed his occupations as it said."
 * 1)  "I changed his occupations as it said."
 * 1)  "I changed his occupations as it said."
 * 1)  "I changed his occupations as it said."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Jay-Z."
 * 2)   "Lead style"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user who has been changing leads of articles about hip hop artists. Messages and warnings have not worked. WP:COMMUNICATION is required but they have ignores all messages on their talk page. Please take a look at their contributions, I picked one article but they did so on several. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Pinging and .  soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, attempts to communicate with and warn this user have not worked. A block is needed; probably indef. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 15:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As noted, what we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men. (Cue arpeggiated acoustic guitar strumming, with whistling) Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ethereum-05 reported by User:Annh07 (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1234240033 by Annh07 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1234227179 by Jay eyem (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1233977611 by Jay eyem (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 2024 MLS All-Star Game."
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2024 MLS All-Star Game."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Revert edits multiple times without discussion. Ethereum-05 repeatedly changed the nationality of Maarten Paes even though the player has not yet played for the Indonesian national team. The article about this player has been protected because of disruptive edits related to his nationality. Annh07 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * from article. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

User:65.183.146.241 reported by User:Paul Erik (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: Persistently misrepresenting what Dr. Ruth is known for. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 16:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

User:23.93.183.31 reported by User:WikiOriginal-9 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
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:
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Nutty1821 reported by User:FlightTime Phone (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Using slander"
 * 2)  "Her Mothers personal information and no permission to use that information"
 * 3)  "Career"
 * 4)  "/* Early life */"
 * 5)  "Personal information"
 * 6)  "Career"
 * 1)  "Personal information"
 * 2)  "Career"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Disruption 2."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Chanel West Coast."
 * 3)   "Only warning: Ownership of articles on Chanel West Coast."
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Chanel West Coast."
 * 5)   "/* July 2024 */ + section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * See talk page responses to warnings. -  FlightTime Phone  ( open channel ) 14:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sometimes jerkass has a point. Hollywood Mask, the source linked to the material Nutty keeps removing, gives the subject's mother's nickname but says nothing about her having been an adult-film actress. Furthermore, I am not sure this publication has been identified as a reliable source for BLP or indeed any content here. Lastly I am not sure that, even if true and reliably sourced, the subject's non-notable mother's previous career is relevant to the article about her daughter. So, for the several reasons given above, Nutty's edits easily meet the 3RR exception for unsourced or dubiously sourced negative information about a living person. FlightTime, I think you owe them an apology. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Skets33 reported by User:Cookiemonster1618 (Result: Pages already protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

'''User questions 'Do you have a cited source that confirms the percentage of Fallata people in Sudan and Mauritania? Can you provide a cited source which confirms a percentage higher to the o.4% for Sudan?''' After explaining to them on their talk page as well as mine that there are clearly cited sources that mention the population figures for Fulani in Sudan and Mauritania, they preceded to change population numbers repeteadly based on their own estimates and ignored cited sources. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, you're late. Face-smile.svg The pages Hausa people and Fula people are already protected. Now please open a discussion on the article's talk page. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Mztourist reported by User:Historyman1944 (Result: Reporter blocked for 72h for abuse of process)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir&oldid=1234077424  [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir&oldid=1233640280 [diff]
 * 2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir&oldid=1232523247 [diff]
 * 3) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir&oldid=1231940466 [diff]
 * 4) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir&oldid=1233845665 [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Chosin_Reservoir?markasread=319932475&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Mztourist-20240714144200-Jack_Upland-20240713032500 Historyman1944Historyman1944 (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [diff]

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

Comments: User Mztourist has repeatedly changed the outcome of this battle to “see aftermath” when realistically it should be “Chinese victory”. This battle was a definitive Chinese victory and I believe that Mztourist is trying to downplay the Chinese accomplishment by making the result less clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyman1944 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this violates 3RR; each are on a different day. And, the most recent diff presented was 4 days ago, so this looks stale. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Requesting a WP:BOOMERANG block for WP:REVENGE by SPA User:Historyman1944. I had already warned them about edit-warring on their Talk Page : ; raised the matter for discussion on the subject talk page: Talk:Battle of Chosin Reservoir and reported them for continued edit-warring: for which they were blocked: . Mztourist (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging as the previous blocking administrator. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t see how what I did was any different than what you’re doing currently. You are continuing to change the result back and forth as I am and somehow I am in the wrong? The only reason I got blocked was because you ran to go cry to the administrator because things weren’t going exactly your way Historyman1944 (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Historyman1944 for 72h for abuse of process. I blocked Historyman and Mztourist on July 12 for 48h each for edit-warring at this article. Since expiration of those blocks, neither user has edited the article. This is a WP:POINTy filing by Historyman and a waste of everyone's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Orangeblack1894 reported by User:Kovcszaln6 (Result: Blocked 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1234655731 by Kovcszaln6 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1234655475 by Joyous! (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1234655193 by Joyous! (talk) Irrelevant - still not notable"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1234653870 by Kovcszaln6 (talk) NOT A NOTABLE PERSON"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "refer to wp:afd"

Comments: Blanked the page 7 times. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked 72h for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

User:ActionHeroesAreReal reported by User:Firefangledfeathers (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Trimmed; lead already too long"
 * 2)  "Trimmed, lead already too long"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1234654326 by FMSky (talk)"
 * 4)  "Trimmed: lead already too long"
 * 5)  "Trimmed; Lead already too long"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Warned at 13:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Even if you don't count the first removal as a revert, AHAR has breached 3RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Beat me to the report. The article is also enforced BRD by AE. Which they broke long ago, while failing to engage in any discussion anywhere after being reverted by 5 different people. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * . Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Drink jacket reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Supplementary information has been provided"
 * 2)  "If you think the Soviet Union has 35 million square kilometers of territory, it means that Britain is nothing"
 * 3)  "Does the Soviet Union have 35 million square kilometers of territory? Does it still dominate Chinese politics? Do you admit it yourself? What idiot"
 * 4)  "我将其他人对苏联势力范围的夸大描述进行了删改"
 * 5)  "我把对苏联势力范围的夸大描述进行了删改"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Not communicating in English."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I can't pick another, but user has been issued a final warning already. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Maurice20111 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
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 was blocked for 24 hours before. Went on to do the same thing, changing leads of articles about hip hop artists. Messages, warnings and block have not worked. Zero WP:COMMUNICATION. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 04:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

This editor doesn't seem WP:HERE due to incessant redescribing of performers they are a fan of, using edit summaries like "Tyga is my favorite rapper" and "Roddy Ricch is amazing!". Stefen Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 04:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , with the hopes that blocking them for a longer time period will get them to review the issues at hand. If it continues, the next block will likely need to be indefinite. Aoidh (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:125.26.88.57 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Changed redirect target from South Korea to North Korea"
 * 2)  "←Changed redirect target from South Korea to North Korea"
 * 3)  "←Changed redirect target from South Korea to North Korea"

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

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

Comments:
 * for one year since this has been slowly ongoing since December, and all of the edit in that time period have been this back-and-forth reverting. Aoidh (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:103.241.37.168 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "BELLA POARCH IS NOT AMERICAN SHE IS FILIPINO"
 * 2)  "BELLA POARCH IS NOT AMERICAN"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1234647099 by 2606:6A40:9:4E6A:284D:D742:D699:9E38 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1234647770 by 103.241.37.168 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1234647099 by 2606:6A40:9:4E6A:284D:D742:D699:9E38 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1234647770 by 103.241.37.168 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1234647770 by 103.241.37.168 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bella Poarch."
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bella Poarch."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * for 3 months. Aoidh (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Raoul mishima reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Same as below  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:98.240.113.219 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Partially Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 1234952199 by MrOllie (talk) you are the one edit warring, when you follow me from another article and revert me without giving any justification, while jacona and i are discussing the sources and the language to be used"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 1234949955 by MrOllie (talk) what is the reason for the revert"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 1234915855 by Jacona (talk) if you want to take up a contrary position, and oppose my revision, you should state your reasons - why do you want to remove a critical fact (that the victim of the lynching confessed), when it's in the sources which are already cited?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 1234890006 by AntiDionysius (talk) reason for the revert ???"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1234828573 by Jacona (talk) you can add these details, if you have sources for them, but it's not constructive to remove them altogether"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1234372753 by Jacona (talk) reason for the revert ?"

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * from editing New Albany, Mississippi.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Epicgenius reported by User:Capmo (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: several versions, he always changes the article after reverting me.

Diffs of my edits that were reverted:
 * 1)  (June 26)
 * 2)  (July 3)
 * 3)  (July 10)
 * 4)  (July 11)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I was reading this article on June 26 and noticed that facade appeared several times in it. Considering that it's a loanword from French, where it's spelled façade with a cedilla, and considering that the English Wikipedia article also uses the spelling with a cedilla, I edited the article to apply this spelling. There are possibly hundreds of other articles that may be using the spelling without a cedilla, I'm not trying to impose my POV and changing all of them. I did it on this particular article because I genuinely thought it was an improvement, but the user does not accept it at all. He reverted me four times and then accused *me* of edit warring, on the talk page. He insists that facade is the correct spelling and that there needs to be an "article-level consensus" on the subject for it to be changed. I'm not asking for a block on the user, I just would like someone else to weigh in on this discussion. I particularly think that façade is a more suitable spelling and that the user is imposing his POV and acting as the "owner" of the article, but I will accept whichever solution is proposed by a neutral third party. Regards, —capmo (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant guideline here is WP:DIACRITICS. Which version the Wikipedia article uses is irrelevant; which version do the sources about this article use? (There is no violation of WP:3RR here, by the way, due to the long period over which the reverts were made). Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission source does not use a diacritic, and neither does the National Park Service source. There is a PhD dissertation that seems to use both spellings interchangeably, but most of the other news sources don't seem to use any diacritics.Capmo is trying to impose his preferred spelling of the article by citing an RM at Talk:Façade, even though there was specifically no consensus for either spelling. Since the Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo House article's sources consistently use the spelling "facade", and since "facade" is not an incorrect spelling in American English, I changed it back to that spelling. When I pointed that out on the talk page, Capmo accused me of reverting the spelling "based solely on your personal taste". After I made additional comments on the talk page, pointing out that "facade" is a proper spelling, he refused to further engage, and instead filed this edit warring report. He also claimed that "consensus was already reached at façade, we don't need another one", even though the previous RM ended in a decision of "no consensus".I should also note that I didn't revert him after July 10 - there was no fourth revert. This edit-warring report seems to be specious, as I did discuss on the talk page, but Capmo refused to respond other than to say that I was imposing my own POV into the article, which I was not. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Epicgenius sorry, I inadvertently assumed you had reverted me a fourth time, which didn't happen. I apologize for that. —capmo (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite, thank you for your observations. When reading WP:3RR I didn't notice that it was restricted to a short time-frame, my bad. I accept your suggestion to apply the spelling according to the sources used in the article and will discuss this on Epicgenius's talk page. Kind regards, —capmo (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Tomforx reported by User:1Veertje (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to:
 * 
 * 

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 
 * 
 * 

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

Comments:
 * . Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ssr reported by User:Mikeblas (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: baseline version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

I think these are unacceptable and objectively unproductive. The material added by this user introduces seven or so undefined reference errors. There's one reference that's hooked-up, but all others cause errors. The edits this user made were not described in edit summaries, and I offered to help on the talk page. Their responses have not been WP:CIVIL. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I would have blocked but I am unfortunately involved with this user. Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 3RR wasn't violated, but this editor's intransigence and battleground mentality, as evidenced on the talk page, in reverting over the last couple of days are enough to justify this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , while I generally don't use the three-revert rule to evaluate whether there was an edit war, the four diff links provided in the report have three different dates in their UTC timestamps, 2024-07-15, -16 and -17. It is thus impossible for them to fit into 24 hours. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then, where should I have ask for help with this problem? -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , here. "This page is for reporting active edit warriors" too. Daniel Case just pointed out that the 3RR hasn't been violated, you wondered about it and I explained why 3RR didn't apply – but that doesn't mean the report was wrong (it led to a block). &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see. How confusing! Thanks for the explanation. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As it says at WP:EW, 3RR need not have been violated for edit warring to have occurred. As WP:GAME explains, editors who try to comply with the letter of the policy but not its spirit by making sure their four reverts occur over a greater period than 24 hours will get blocked, and we have also blocked editors who, like Ssr, made a revert or two for several days running as well as those who spread their reverts across different articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User:150.107.175.66 reported by User:AP 499D25 (Result: Blocked 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Removal of "British politician" from lead sentence: Adding "ex-" to the lead sentence:
 * 1) 02:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) 08:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) 20:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) 07:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) 20:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) 06:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 4) 09:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 5) 07:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) 09:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

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

Comments:

The person making these edits behind this IP address appears to be uncommunicative, unaware of the policy about edit warring, and is constantly restoring these changed—which have now been opposed by at least seven different editors, including me—without engaging in any talk page discussion.

What's rather ironic and funny here is that this 150.107.175.66 IP address is actually the public IP I'm currently editing Wikipedia from. I discovered this edit war incidentally while using Wikipedia in a private browsing window, and so I tried to stop the edit war by sending the IP a friendly notice about edit-warring (I noticed there were "vandalism" warnings on the user talk page, which I know these edits aren't quite vandalism), as well as starting a discussion on the article talk page providing my opinion on the matter (although I did make one revert, with a good explanation).

More about this IP, it's a CGNAT network, meaning there are actually multiple customer connections on this single IP address. Doesn't look like a block would cause much collateral damage though, and I am aware the standard type of IP address editing block only prevents anonymous users from editing and not logged-out editors. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  05:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This would have been a first chance to experience what it's like to be blocked from editing Wikipedia (from an IP editor PoV of course), but that has already just been fulfilled earlier today at university, where I was suddenly met with a block notice after clicking on the undo button of (ironically,) the edit-warred edit above to see if it's undoable (I was not logged in over there). Though strangely, the "Your current IP address" was completely different from the actual subnet that was blocked (leftmost digits were off by 80), so that was kinda bizarre to me. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  05:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a list of the pages displayed by MediaWiki to blocked users in various situations. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User:5.64.200.38 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edit based on British and EU law. Do NOT reverse."
 * 2)  "/* Reform UK campaign (2024) */Edit based on British and EU law. Do NOT reverse."
 * 3)  "/* Reform UK campaign (2024) */Removing further reference to the spent conviction.
 * 1)  "/* Reform UK campaign (2024) */Removing further reference to the spent conviction.
 * 1)  "/* Reform UK campaign (2024) */Removing further reference to the spent conviction.

Justification in line with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act / European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy), and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (conviction is now spent)."
 * 1)  "/* Early life, family and education */Removing wording again to protect the personal details of a private individual as per Article 8 of the HRA / ECHR"
 * 2)  "Removing again as per Legal advice. Reference to Article 8 of the HRA / ECHR and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974."
 * 3)  "/* Early life, family and education */Reference to family member is in breach of the law as the referenced person is a non public figure and has the right to privacy. The person in question has never been discussed publicly by James McMurdock MP. Quote is also inaccurate as it mixes different points in time; living in a council house (past) and the mother’s work (present)"
 * 4)  "Mr McMurdock MP is protected by Law and has the right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
 * 1)  "Mr McMurdock MP is protected by Law and has the right to privacy under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

The conviction in question is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders act 1974.

All matters relating to this offence took place before his election. As such continued reference to this past incident is in breach of Article 8 of the HRA / ECHR."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on James McMurdock."
 * 2)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on James McMurdock."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has three times removed information relating to this person's conviction. Editor has posted on my Talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tacyarg&diff=prev&oldid=1235353107 Edits are based on British and European law. Do not reverse] and similar on 's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

He has now also replied to my warning with the same. Porterjoh (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User:38.51.82.15 and others reported by User:Banfield (Result:Semi-protected for three months)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

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

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:


 * for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Truefacts24 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Partial block )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football

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

Comments:

This editor seems entirely unwilling to engage with the concerns others have with their editing in this dispute. In particular, their final comment in the WT:FOOTY discussion reads as them saying "anyone who disagrees with me must be acting in bad faith." Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sir Sputnik is trying to dictate a discussion by reporting me and ignoring what me and others have stated. Taking my last comment out of context. I have only provided facts and others try to argue with emotions. People agree with me, I have proven that FIFA agrees with me. Sir Sputnik is a German speaker with a bias to change or ignore reality to make his favorite football team look better than the truth. I am neither German nor Uruguayan, I’m a US citizen trying to get the truth to be told.Truefacts24 (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Partially blocked and warned for personal attacks.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no personal attack. I just stated facts that are particularly relevant in this discussion. Truefacts24 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You abused this noticeboard for personal attacks. Any more and the partial block will become a siteblock.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:THETRUTH. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

User:64.185.2.22 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.""
 * 2)  "The link was not dead. The link did not exist in the first place. The reference was to a cookbook of recipes, not a historical source. The information is invalid."
 * 3)  "Missing citations are not the problem. False or unsubstantiated information is the problem. This information should never have been published here. Stop putting this false information back here."
 * 4)  "Content is supported by an absent source and is not a verified historical fact. The posted information is an attempt to rewrite history (see barbecue). Content removed."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 1235546604 by The Master of Hedgehogs (talk). Content is supported by an absent source and is not a verified historical fact. The posted information is an attempt to rewrite history (see barbecue). Content removed."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 1235160402 by Doclys (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * another diff I reverted myself. The edit summary clearly shows that they are aware of the edit warring rules "Then stop violating the edit warring rules..." but they keep reverting anyway. win8x (talking &#124; spying) 22:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

User:38.51.82.15 reported by User:Banfield (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

Please hide this unfriendly comment in the edit summary. . Thanks,  B anfield - Threats here 00:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I personally would avoid performing revision deletion on this case of rather ordinary incivility, but I'd be fine with anyone doing so. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)