Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive487

User:Alhitmi123 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Abu Tahir al-Jannabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alhitmi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:

The previous edit warring report was declined due to "an indefinite block very possible and seeming likely" in the ANI thread [9], which I thought as well. However, despite 4 supports for a indef block, the report got auto archived. Now Alhitmi123 is back at edit warring, making up a new lie to remove sourced info. This user is WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

wow all of that because i wanted the readers to have an actual real academic source? I still have faith that the moderators are actually going to make a logical decision. Adding unrelated sources and opinions will just mislead readers into the wrong conclusion. Please double check the citations, and if you have a credible source with an author, you can mention it. I would be the first person to support you in that. Alhitmi123 (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

If you used less time complaining about me on Reddit (and yes, I saw your other posts too, very charming, perhaps use some of that energy into sources) and some actual time looking into the sources you call unreliable, you would easily see that Encyclopedia Iranica is in fact reliable [10] [11]. You have jumped between four different excuses now [12] [13] [14] [15], WP:NOTHERE. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I see you declined a prior report due to the AN/I case mentioned above, which was never resolved. In light of the revert warring, I find somewhat disturbing the relative dearth of talk page discussions about content. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: No, Daniel Case declined it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Woops. Apologies. You commented there, and somehow my brain registered your comment as the decline. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for blocking them. Unfortunately this has led them to resort to personal attacks once more, once again proving that they are WP:NOTHERE:

• With all my heart, i advise you to walk outside and make some friends 🙏.
• Couple of persian nationalists who spends the largest chunk of their lives editing unsourced narratives that gives them the satisfaction of a false fantasy victory teamed up and trying to pass their narrative.

HistoryofIran (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• The reported user does have serious WP:CIR and WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. After this report and their above comment, they did it again.[16] --Mann Mann (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Declined As much as I do not see this ultimately ending well, Alhitmi hasn't edited the page in a couple of days, and this report is about to get archived. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Alhitmi hasn't edited the page because I had blocked the account for 24 hours. And then forgot to close this case. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, maybe that was enough ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Memevietnam98 reported by User:Compassionate727 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Safety Act (California law) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Memevietnam98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 10:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents "/* User keeps adding copyright violations after being warned */ new section"

Comments:

See also the revisions deleted for copyright violations; this editor has reinserted this copyright violation five or six times in the past three days. Warnings have been given for copyright violations, although not for edit warring per se, and been ignored. Additionally, there is a section at ANI about this editor's behavior, which they have also ignored. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Abdullah Thathal reported by User:Ixudi (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Sultanate of Multan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Abdullah Thathal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 14:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
3. 14:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Origins */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sultanate of Multan."
2. 14:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sultanate of Multan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user initially edited with an IP (see here: 14:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC) but then logged into their account once that was reverted. They are persistently adding unsourced content and ignoring warnings on talk page. The user also seems to have trouble adding references. They are trying to cite an "Enkay Publishers" but not including any further information. Ixudi (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. I've also blocked Special:contributions/151.177.100.0/22 for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User:45.73.66.38 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: D23 (Disney) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 45.73.66.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

IP continues to post incorrectly formatted images and unsourced content over and over. They have been notified on their talk page, and for the unsourced content I even created a topic on the article talk page for them to discuss. The IP refuses to discuss their edits. Bahooka (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I (hopefully) completed the form properly and resubmitted.. This IP also does the edit warring over many days rather than just 48 hours. Bahooka (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User:45.73.66.38 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Blocked from article for a month)

Page: D23 (Disney) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 45.73.66.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 21:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC) on Talk:D23 (Disney) "/* Future D23 event */ new section"

Comments:

IP continues to post incorrectly formatted images and unsourced content over and over. They have been notified on their talk page, and for the unsourced content I even created a topic on the article talk page for them to discuss. The IP refuses to discuss their edits. Note: I posted this earlier but did not complete the form properly. Bahooka (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month from article. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

User:188.25.104.45 reported by User:Borgenland (Result: Already blocked for 31 hours)

Page: Voepass Linhas Aéreas Flight 2283 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.25.104.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]
7. [24]
8. [25]
9. [26]
10. [27]
11. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29] [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] [32] [33]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34] [35] [36] [37]

Comments:
Already blocked  for a period of 31 hours by Cullen328 Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Yonasse (closed)

Page: Flourless chocolate cake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page: Ladyfingers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page: Marron glacé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Yonasse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 1349, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ""

1. 12:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ""

1. 12:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ""

Comments: This user reversed the content of the articles to the previous version made by socked puppet accounts ans start making baseless accusations (I suspect it's another sock puppet) 79.17.172.126 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Deferring to the SPI on this, per the last comment there. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

User:79.17.172.126 (closed)

Page: Poire_à_la_Beaujolaise

User being reported: 79.17.172.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) '

Diffs of edit warring:

1. 15:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 15:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 16:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ""

Comments:

IP was blocked last week for edit warring and is edit warring again now that the block is over. This IP seems to be a block evasion of 95.248.34.201 and 87.9.223.167 as they share the same location and were active in the same articles. Yonasse (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Retaliatory report per above; will again defer to the SPI where a checkuser has been requested. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Ampupu123 reported by User:Solidandrewsister (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page:

1. The Hows of Us (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. List of highest-grossing Philippine films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ampupu123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. The Hows of Us - 11:25, 3 September 2024
2. List of highest grossing Philippine films - 09:41, 3 September 2024
3. List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines - 10:05, 3 September 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The Hows of Us

• 10:51, 3 September 2024
• 12:37, 3 September 2024‎
• 09:33, 4 September 2024

List of highest grossing Philippine films

• 10:36, 3 September 2024‎
• 12:30, 3 September 2024‎
• 09:35, 4 September 2024

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines

• 10:52, 3 September 2024
• 12:34, 3 September 2024
• 09:34, 4 September 2024

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

00:48, 5 September 2024

Comments:

@Ampupu123 has been reverting the edits for The Hows of Us, List of highest-grossing Philippine films, and List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines. They made three consecutive reverts within 24 hours (which is a clear violation of WP:3RR) to the said articles starting on September 3.

According to the parent company of Star Cinema, ABS-CBN, The Hows of Us grossed P1 billion at the box office as of February 2019.[38] It was not only published in their article but also broadcasted on live television.[39]

Despite posting a warning on his Talk page on 00:48, 5 September 2024‎, @Ampupu123 keeps reverting the edits on the said articles. They claimed that "the films Rewind and Hello, Love, Goodbye grossed more than this movie" even though they cannot provide an updated article to support his claim.

Furthermore, @Ampupu123 made a false claim that The Hows of Us grossed only ₱788 million at the box office. His source is the 2018 Annual Report with Consolidated Audited Financial Statement of ABS-CBN. However, the financial statement clearly indicated that the reports are only for the fiscal year ended on December 31, 2018. Solidandrewsister (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

User:96.230.85.65 reported by User:Farell37 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Köppen climate classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.230.85.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of user's reverts:

1. 15:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 15:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 15:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC) ""

Comments: The user @96.230.85.65 has been reverting the edits on the Köppen climate classification. The city limit per country is 3 and I have been making edits to ensure that only 3 cities per country are placed. However, the user's revertions mean that there continue to be more than 3 cities per country in some cases, which does not meet the requirements that are written at the beginning. Farell37 (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Civil9095 reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Modern monetary theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Civil9095 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Civil9095 was blocked on 2024-09-04T14:53:42 for edit warring on this same article. They returned and edit alternately as Civil9095 and 98.118.249.192 and have continued this behavior.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

• Indefinitely blocked. I also blocked their IP, Special:contributions/98.118.249.192, for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:WorthPoke2 (Result: ECP 10 days)

Page: Lisa Cameron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xwv9009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]
5. [46]
6. [47]
7. [48]
8. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 31RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [52]

Comments:
There's been consistent issues with BLP material and new editors editing this page. User joined to edit, has contributed, but appears determined to carry on personal attacks in edit notes rather than use talk page. WorthPoke2 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Untrue, there have been no personal attacks of you, you "demanded" an apology on the talk page citing that I had made personal attacks (which i have not) and have repeatedly undid my edits with similar attacks citing my "poorly written material" "vanity posting" etc. I have made several active contributions on many wikis without reply. You constantly undo edits of long standing and factual material to support and further your political viewpoint. You repeatedly engage in editing of this page negatively, and have previously conducted similar behaviours with a number of other editors that further a nationalist viewpoint and on other pages. You removed sections on the 2024 election result, you removed sections on disability activism and crypto and have been historically engaged in negative attacks on this page.

Examples

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Cameron&oldid=1245016167 you accuse me of "poorly writing articles"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Cameron&oldid=1242789221 if "multiple users" are questioning BLP issues, why are they not on the talk page or engaging in editing the article constructively?

You have also edited a number of Labour/Conservative/Alba pages to further a particular narrative including Ash Regan Paul Sweeney and others.

e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Sweeney&oldid=1211830212 repeated edits of a Labour Party politician from a nationalist perspective

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ash_Regan&oldid=1221382794 similar edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eilidh_Whiteford&oldid=1215523614 adding in details of a complaint against a Labour MP

I have not seen in your edit history any negativity towards Scottish National Party political representatives, only those from a differing political persuasion of which this page is one. Xwv9009 (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. All edits have been reverted back to a point before both editors began revert-warring. Behavioral issues should be brought up at WP:ANI, and it appears to me that a topic ban on one or both editors may be in order. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand if my conduct is to be looked at. I would say that others have [53] [54] flagged this user's edits here as potential BLP issue here. I've attempted to discus material on the talk page. I would say that the other user insisting and multiple times stating my edits are malicious while I am doing all I can to assume good faith does seem to count as a personal attack, as does their statements in edit logs that I "exclusively edit Scottish politician pages" and do so with pro nationalist bias.

Would suggest they have not looked at the edits they are citing, 1) the Paul Sweeney article, like this, is a page where a minor politician's page seems to have becomes massively bloated and I've attempted to trim it down, with IP edits attempting to re-add removed material. It was not editing "from a nationalist perspective" just trimming a 98k character article of a minor politician to 78k. 2) The Eilidh Whiteford page is not me "adding in details of a complaint against a Labour MP" -- I added to a long-standing section on the page pertaining to the complaint, which, if anything, can be read as critical of an SNP figure. 3) The Ash Regan edit cited was not me adding content. I undid an edit [55] deleting a section that had been in the article for months, claiming that it was just "removing language". 4)I have posted a number of things that could be construed as negative/looking bad for SNP politicians -- and claiming otherwise would indicate they've not looked at my edit history.

I've edited Scottish political pages because it's something I am informed on, but have striven to uphold NPOV. Other user does stuff like delete details which look bad without explanation [56], and has refused to engage on Talk page. Thanks for the protection, pols for my part here, will look at ANI. WorthPoke2 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist

Thank you for the update and action on the page. I apologise for you having to do this, and apologise for my role. However in mitigation.

Im being accused of removing details that are unhelpful to the page which Worthpoke2 is also doing.

In particular

Examples

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Cameron&oldid=1245016167 this edit removes a number of items that are notable, including ministerial intervention, which had been on the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Cameron&oldid=1244472886 again similar behaviours removing items that have been historically deemed as noteworthy

They also removed "disability activism" "carers champion" "positive campaign" over a number of edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Cameron&oldid=1231179624

There also have been historical edits on the page by the same user removing information that should be deemed as NPOV

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_Cameron&oldid=1227612354

I apologise for any inconvenience caused by my actions Anachronist, and will strive to improve my editing noting your comments as. Apologies again.

Have a good day. Xwv9009 (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Marina0804 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page:  
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]
6. [63]
7. [64]
8. [65]
9. [66]
10. [67]

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

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

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

Comments:

• User:Marina0804 is the latest in a long line of new accounts trying to remove sourced material from this article. BusterD (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:46.135.15.226 reported by User:Chingiziii (Result: Declined; reporter blocked as a sock)

Page: Karel Komárek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.67.145.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 46.135.15.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 46.135.9.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 212.185.66.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 46.135.7.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 46.135.23.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 31.30.111.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log):

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]
6. [74]
7. [75]
8. [76]

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:

these anonymous IP addresses are making a war of edits on Karel Komárek's page. They are deleting the same information that is confirmed by sources like The Guardian or Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. This vandalism is done as part of the publicity for this Czech businessman. I would like to ask you to look into the situation. Thank you. Chingiziii (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined, this is a mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the reporter as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:74.196.2.26 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: All In (2024) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 74.196.2.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 08:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC) to 08:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
   1. 08:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC) to 08:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
   1. 08:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC) ""
   3. 08:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC) to 08:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
   1. 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC) ""
   3. 08:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 20:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 07:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on All In (2024)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note that 3RR hasn't yet been breached, but as the user has made 3 reverts today (discounting consecutive edits, of which there are many), plus 2 more within the past 48 hours, this is clearly edit warring that isn't stopping.

Edits include altering sourced material, deleting sources, and misrepresting sources. — Czello ^(music) 09:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:FerrariFan77 reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: 2024 Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: FerrariFan77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245227641 by Cerebral726 (talk) - doesn't matter if other articles have used mid season as the title of that section then that is the right way to do it"
2. 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Mid season changes */"
3. 14:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* In-season changes */ - other articles call it a mid season driver change despite the change happening before round 6 or round 18"
4. 18:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245049481 by Marbe166 (talk) - the change didn't happen before or after the season so it is a mid season change."
5. 18:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245047337 by Marbe166 (talk) it is mid season as it is the middle of a current season"
6. 17:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1244897256 by Marbe166 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
2. 19:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* September 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Mid season changes. */ Reply"

Comments:

Edit warring, including after warning. Responded with personal attack after finally starting a discussion. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock. I would have blocked for one week for the edit-warring and the personal attack.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Knowitall369 reported by User:Notwally (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Page: Josef Sorett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Knowitall369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245258633 by Notwally (talk) Gaslighting is not an explanation for your vandalism."
2. 23:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245258037 by Notwally (talk) Enough. Go back one month and read the whole exhange. Stop vandalizing and stop gaslighting. You've gone too far."
3. 23:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245257134 by Notwally (talk) Since you have repeatedly vandalized this page, you are fully aware of what's on the Talk page. Read your own excuses for your prior vandalism. Take it to the talk page!"
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC) to 23:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
   1. 23:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245252201 by Notwally (talk) There is an entire talk page section about this content. stop deleting without consensus, see WP:ONUS"
   2. 23:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1245252177 by Notwally (talk) There is an entire talk page section about this content. stop deleting without consensus, see WP:ONUS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Josef Sorett."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Texting controversy */ r"

Comments:

Editor has repeatedly reverted my recent changes, with no response to my comment on the talk page and instead repeatedly accusing me of vandalism. – notwally (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:ShmayoAramean reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Güngören, Midyat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ShmayoAramean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC) "Restored to neutral. No Assyrianism, only Syriacs and our church."
2. 22:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC) "I made a last small correction. I made the link to our church so we can all be neutral and everyone can can accept it."
3. 18:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC) "We are the villagers from Keferbe. Keferbe has only existed as a village for 800 years. Mor Stefanus was a standalone church without a village around it. Also, these types of villages have no documented books. There is also 0.0% reference to Assyrians so before making such statements, please mention sources in the talk section. If there are none, Syriacs would be another possibility."
4. 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Güngören, Midyat."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violated WP:3RR while edit warring R0paire-wiki (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Someguywhosbored reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: Withdrawn by reporter)

Page: Mughal dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Someguywhosbored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [83]

Comments:

Since I’m the one being reported I guess I’ll give context. Me and padfoot had been discussing on the Mughal dynasty talk page for months now. There was once an RFC on the Mughal empire page which showed that short synthetic dashed labels like “indo-Muslim” have no real place on Wikipedia. Consensus was to remove that term.

Recently there was another RFC in the Mughal dynasty page after padfoot tried adding the term “indianized” to the page. This ended in no consensus. So padfoot tried adding a different term without gaining consensus. Despite the fact that I had repeatedly reminded him that per WP:NOCONSENSUS, previous content is retained until consensus is reached. In fact I explained to him how the ONUS is on him to achieve consensus because he’s the one who’s trying to add disputed content. Despite the fact that this was explained to him multiple times, and not just by me, he still continued to edit war on the Mughal dynasty page. These edits were clearly disruptive and possibly even a case of vandalism. Which is why I removed it.

The most interesting thing is that padfoot had already reverted more than 4 times on the Mughal dynasty page[[84]] [[85]] [[86]] [[87]]. And there was 3 reverts within 24 hours as well. for that I considered dropping my own report. But furthermore, he wasn’t removing any disruptive edits, rather he was pushing his POV even after he was told that he needs consensus for these changes. He had been edit warring on other topics similar to this as well.

Now I think this was vandalism which is why I originally broke the 4th revert rule because I thought it would be fine but I’m willing to revert my own comment if that was a mistake to avoid edit warring. Still despite the fact that I kept telling padfoot to use the talk page and stop adding his preferred edit, he kept doing it. He needs to understand that WP:ONUS is on him because he’s the one who’s adding disputed content. Even when we were discussing this in the talk page, he purposely ignored the fact that WP:ONUS is on him, and wouldn’t respond to this point no matter how many times I brought it up.

I’m not sure if that changes anything. Like I said I’m willing to self revert if what he’s doing is not actually vandalism, but still he was never supposed to be adding the term “indo-Timurids” to the article anyway because he clearly did not gain consensus after two RFCs.

All I’m asking is for him to pay attention to the fact that he needs consensus if he wants to add disputed content. And WP:ONUS is on him. There’s a lot of other factors I haven’t mentioned yet but I think I can stop here for right now. Like I said, I’m willing to self revert, although he should probably do the same as both of us seem to have broken the 4th revert rule (Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC))

I've not broken 3RR. The last one is from 7 July. I've no intention to ever break 3RR or edit war. All your reverts were within 24 hours, not "months ago" as you claim. PadFoot (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I realized that mistake prior to this comment which is why I removed that part of the comment but nonetheless this doesn’t really respond to everything else I mentioned. Also, it seems that you made 3 reverts(including a Manuel revert) within 24 hours which is indeed edit warring.

like I said I’m willing to self revert as long as you are. But my biggest issue is that you took it to this venue when it was clear that you couldn’t gain consensus for your recent changes. You ignored me repeatedly when I told you that per WP:NOCONSENSUS, previous content is retained. You ignored me when I mentioned that WP:ONUS is on you because you’re the one who’s adding the disputed content. You kept ignoring me despite the fact that I told you to use the talk page to hash this issue out. And despite getting on the talk page, you ignored WP:ONUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS. It seems that you purposefully ignored this point despite repeated reminders. Which is why I originally thought that this may have been vandalism. You were supposed to self revert once your addition was disputed. “ The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content” [[88]]

And this isn’t even your first case of edit warring. You edit warred very recently on another page related to the Mughal dynasty which you got a warning for in September 8 2024. User talk:PadFoot2008 Someguywhosbored (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyway I can self revert if that resolves this issue. My guess is that padfoots edit will get reverted anyway because he didn’t gain consensus for it. I would like to see what the administrators say first. But I’d also that recommend that padfoot does the same if I do considering he had broken 3RR as well. Also, the issue of the term “Indo-Timurids” should be resolved in the talk page. We shouldn’t be adding disputed content until consensus is reached. In fact we already had an RFC on the Mughal empire page about this, which ruled in favor of removing short synthetic labels that start with “indo” for various reasons. Someguywhosbored (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The RFC ruled in favour of removing "Indo-Muslim" as a descriptive term for the empire from the lead. PadFoot (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you even care to look at the section of my user talk page you linked? There was no edit warring involved at all. PadFoot (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I self reverted my edit to avoid editing warring and at least resolve this issue. But yes you have been edit warring. When you make three reverts in a 24 hour period(your reverts were a few hours separate from each other), your edit warring. I also made that mistake despite the fact that you shouldn’t have been continuously adding this content to due to ONUS and NOCONSENSUS.

And if you’re talking about your previous edit warring case, yes you were edit warring there as well. [[89]]

[[90]]

[[91]]

you made 3 reverts in 24 hours. Which is why you got the edit warring notice on your talk page in September. Ironically, you had actually given an edit warring warning to one of the other users. Furthermore in that exact same discussion, you were reminded of WP:ONUS repeatedly and ignored it despite the fact that you’re not supposed to making further reverts from that point on. The same issue came up in the talk page of the [[92]]. You’ve been reminded repeatedly of the same offense and still keep doing it. That’s incredibly disruptive.

I apologize however for the fact that I wasn’t patient enough to wait until the process would fix itself. Instead I mistakenly edit warred thinking this may have been vandalism and thus fine to revert more than 4 times, but perhaps that was the wrong. I’m not really experienced enough to make that kind of a call in a more complex discussion like this. Which was my mistake. My previous points still do stand. But I’ve reverted my edit in the mean time. Considering you were edit warring as well, I’d recommend you do the same. But that’s up to your discretion, not mine. Someguywhosbored (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing my complaint as the editor in concern has self-reverted. PadFoot (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Fenasikerim10 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Kalbajar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fenasikerim10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [93]
2. [94]
3. [95]
4. [96]
5. [97]
6. [98]
7. [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [102]

Comments:

Last two reverts were done manually without any edit summary. Also, they're not even allowed to edit this article per WP:GS/AA (which they were told [103]). Bonus: WP:NPA/WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:BATTLEGROUND, safe to say WP:NOTHERE:

A childish mentality person reversing that. Labeling as edit war doesn't help. Whoever made this Wikipedia algorithms must be so dumb.

You are obviously not impartial about this subject.... ...You are nothing a disturbing noise..... ...So find yourself a better hobby.

Well, an Iranian defending an Armenian to forge Wikipedia articles. That's funny as hell. Is there anyone outside of this gang with healthy mind to look at this madness?

Anyways, I am asking editors with more rational minds to intervene. Obviously you are not one of them.

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23! HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Gamechanger707 reported by User:FromCzech (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: 2024 Kazakhstan Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gamechanger707 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:36, 25 August 2024 – no Edit summary
2. 10:12, 28 August 2024 (as an IP) – no Edit summary
3. 11:52, 28 August 2024 – no Edit summary
4. 12:36, 1 September 2024 – attempt to explain
5. 23:09, 7 September 2024 – no Edit summary
6. 20:08, 14 September 2024 – no Edit summary

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

1. 12:07, 28 August 2024 – I drew attention to the unfilled Edit summary and potential edit warring
2. 17:41, 1 September 2024 – after filling out the Edit summary for the first time, I tried to spark a discussion
3. 19:39, 3 September 2024 – I tried to discuss again, but again no response
4. 07:31, 8 September 2024 – formal uw-3rr warning, no response. The user basically shows no effort to communicate.

FromCzech (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Klaytotpot reported by User:SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (Result: Stale)

Page: DokiDoki! PreCure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Klaytotpot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert

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: Not a 3RR report but a report against an attempted edit war by Klaytotpot against ferret. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Divinemomentever reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: The Buddha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Divinemomentever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• diff 13 september, 17:16 (WST)
• diff 13 september, 19:09

1. diff 16 september, 09:03, re-insertion of "Indian subcontinent," against consensus
2. diff 16 september, 09:16
3. diff 16 september, 09:28
4. diff 16 september, 11:22
5. diff 16 september, 11:59, after I notified them of the edit-warring notice-board report

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Not warned for 3RR, but repeatedly warned for disruptive editing: diff, diff, diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The Buddha#South Asia. Also engaged them at their talkpage User:Divinemomentever#Anti-Indian and Hindupobic propaganda, trying to understand their mindset.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff 16 september, 11:56

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

User: Khassanu

Islam

Changed - Revision as of 14:23, 15 September 2024

Reverted - Revision as of 16:19, 15 September 2024

Change - Revision as of 17:01, 16 September 2024

Reverted - Revision as of 18:24, 16 September 2024

Change - Revision as of 18:51, 16 September 2024

They have been told that changing something that is in line source cited and has a fully formed/sourced wiki article at the very least needs to start in the talk page. I gave more detailed info on their talk page with a plea for them to go through the proper steps. Their response was to accuse me in their last revision of being the reason the terms disagree with what they think they should say. Warned about edit warring.

RCSCott91 (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank You.

  RCSCott91 (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:RCSCott91 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page:  
User being reported:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&oldid=1244511347 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]Revision as of 15:06, 12 September 2024
2. [diff]Revision as of 14:23, 15 September 2024
3. [diff]Revision as of 17:01, 16 September 2024
4. [diff]Revision as of 18:51, 16 September 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khassanu&diff=prev&oldid=1246076361

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]Latest revision as of 23:00, 16 September 2024

Comments:

User does not source and does drastic changes to the content of article without so much as a edit summary. I accidentally reverted another user's edit, USER:StarkReport, who was merely attempting to fix USER:Khassanu unsourced changes. I apologized profusely to USER:StarkReport which can be seen in my talk page.User:Khassanu refuses to use article talk page and doesn't respond in user talk page.RCSCott91 (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

User:142.163.206.14 reported by User:The Kip (Result:1 week)

Page: Daniel Walcott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 142.163.206.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Last stable version, from June

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:44, 15 September
2. 18:26, 16 September
3. 10:53, 17 September
4. 13:59, 17 September
5. 14:43, 17 September

The last four specifically are all within the last 24 hours, hence 3RR. The first is from the day prior.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here. As per their usual behavior (see comments), they immediately removed the warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Has already been tried, repeatedly - see comments section.

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

Comments:
User is more than likely a sock of an IP blocked last month for disruptive behavior/edit warring/etc - this specific IP was also already reported yesterday at WP:ANI for block evasion, but no action has been taken yet, and they're continuing to actively disrupt articles (as seen in this report). As for attempts to resolve the edit war/discussion/etc, see the original IP's repeatedly-blanked talk page as well as this whole thread, which led to the initial IP's block, and this other ANI report from their first attempt at block evasion - while not specifically dealing with Walcott himself, it does deal with their refusal to accept the consensus of an RM on NHL entry draft titles (part of the Walcott edit war) as well as their edit-warring on other pages. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Jake Wartenberg.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Synopsis19117 reported by User:ConstantPlancks (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Synopsis19117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106] 1st revert after Drmies removed this.
2. [107] 2nd revert
3. [108] 3rd revert
4. [109]

4th revert with comment "lock the page or i will keep reverting" - This user wants to insert Israel-Hezbollah politics in an article about a chemical

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [112]

Comments:

This is a chemical article. Politics don't belong. There is a current event that is attracting attention and editors are inserting accounts of it in numerous places. There is no need to edit war about it on this page. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

User:113.211.210.44 reported by User:TDKR Chicago 101 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: User talk:TDKR Chicago 101 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) & Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 113.211.210.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114] 1st revert (my talk page)
2. [115] 2nd revert (my talk page)
3. [116] 3rd revert (my talk page)
4. [117] 4th revert (my talk page)
5. [118] 5th revert (my talk page)

1. [119] 1st revert (Wiki admin attn)
2. [120] 2nd revert (Wiki admin attn)
3. [121] 3rd revert (Wiki admin attn)
4. [122] 4th revert (Wiki admin attn)

Unregistered IP has been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment from unregistered user for harasment due to vulgar message he left on my talk page. He appears to be continuously reverting my edits on my talk page and my defense on the Wikipedia Admin Attn page. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

When making the decision to block, keep in mind of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment from unregistered user with the idea of a longer block given the constant personal attacks and persistent revertings on my talk page. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (see the ANI thread linked above) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Csw99 reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Decline Sock blocked)

Page: Common gull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Gull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Marco Pierre White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Sara Haines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Csw99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123][124][125][126]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [127]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [128]

Comments:
This user has spent weeks edit warring on these pages. I found their knowledge of Wiki-specific terminology suspicious for a newer user, so I asked whether they had edited under another account. They refused to answer and suggested it was uncivil to ask that.[129] KyleJoan^talk 08:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Declined The editor could certainly stand to benefit from civility lessons. But they have engaged in talk page discussions, and valid points that they seem to have made have not drawn any response yet. One could just as easily report the other editors involved. In fact it seems like it would be a more viable option to full-protect at least some of the pages (common gull, especially) that we might bring other editors into the discussion to better reach a consensus. If you want that, I'll do it.

And, really, ANEW is no more the place to make stealth sockpuppetry allegations than SPI is the place to report edit warring. If you think they're a sock of a specific editor, go to the former page and report your suspicions there; if privacy is involved, contact a Checkuser privately. Otherwise, AGF requires that at best you see them as trying to make a clean start. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• The edits summaries and dickish commentary made it clear that this is WP:BKFIP and the technical data bears this out. Blocked indef.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Ozone742 reported by Objective30000

[130] [131] [132] [133] All four edits were today during TP discussion, two reverted by an admin. I placed an edit warring warning on their TP suggesting they self-rvt.[134] Response was: I suggest you kick rocks. You know I'm 100% in the right. Try following Wikipedia's polciies sometime instead of threatening people for making important edits.[135] Never heard of kicking rocks. Think I'll try it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Ozone742 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Tim Walz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ozone742 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "Pot calling the kettle black. Correcting misinformation on Wikipedia isn't unacceptable."
2. 00:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "Previous edit was unacceptable. The rank that Walz held while in the Army National Guard is a contentious topic that many see as important. Including Walz, since he's used it in his political campaigns for years. Labeling CSM as conditional and MSG as retired rank seems the most accurate."
3. 23:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Again, the highest rank Walz attained was Master Sergeant. Not Command Sergeant Major since he failed to fulfill the conditions to hold that rank."
4. 23:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Every source on this matter confirms the fact that Walz only held the rank of CSM conditionally, and he failed to meet those conditions. This is objectively true. Do not change unless you have the ability to change the past. https://apnews.com/article/walz-military-record-national-guard-minnesota-harris-8a74ff39f0a698247b28bf4266f20773"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [136]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• See Talk:Tim Walz#‎Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2024

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Courge Marvel reported by User:BOZ (Result: No violation)

Page: Captain America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Courge Marvel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [137]
2. [138]
3. [139]

Comments:
Courge Marvel has been edit warring with User:Morgan695 who put a lot of work into getting Captain America to WP:GA status. They reverted me today saying "Please don't change it or else there will be going to be a war edit." I am only reporting this here because they made a threat to continue edit warring. BOZ (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This feels like I'm engaging in a very "could Goku beat Superman" type of debate, but: for context, the subject of this dispute is over whether the subject of this article possesses superpowers. Per my comments here, the source currently cited in the article states unambiguously that the character does not possess superpowers. Courge Marvel claims the contrary, ironically citing the exact same source. Morgan695 (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Factfinderrr reported by User:Remsense (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Central Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Factfinderrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246392264 by Fyrael (talk) discussed on talk page, page consistency must be maintained"
2. 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Religions */ Improved article consistency-Afghanistan is already discussed in the body of this section. Consensus reached through precedent established in section body approved of and included by other users.Sorted order from highest to lowest demography."
3. 16:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246368620 by Mann Mann (talk) consensus reached based on page consistency and precedent stated in other sections of article and related central asia articles mentioning afghanistan. Discussed further on Talk page"
4. 14:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1246243890 by Fyrael (talk)Afghanistan has been referenced numerous times throughout the article. Canadian, New zealand and australian governments class afghanistan as central asian.https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/media/3216, https://aria.stats.govt.nz/aria/#ClassificationView:uri=http://stats.govt.nz/cms/ClassificationVersion/ys69SsOCPi6Mc4jR,https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/australia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Bamyan and Balkh populations */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Bamyan and Balkh populations */ Reply"

Remsense ‥ 论 12:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Offender and adjacent co-editors have a repeated history of not fairly assessing the discussion points brought by users on the talk page of Central Asia Article. As a result stalemate has been prevalent for years, as offender continues to act in bad faith by failing to consider the arguments posited by myself and other users over the years. One user cited 20 credible sources to validate their claim but their argument was rejected with minimal explanation offered. Similarly, I cited 4 government authorities with the offer of providing more but claim was rebuffed with no explanation. Offender is not actively seeking to engage in discourse and purposefully hindering the evolution of the article as well as impairing consistency and accuracy, which was further discussed in the Talk section. Unsure of how to proceed as offender refuses to assess claims fairly or by merit. Offender also removed previous prejudicial remarks from talk thread.

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Dcheagle reported by User:WizdomT (Result: Reporter indefinitely blocked)

Page: Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcheagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1.[140]

2.[141]

3. [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

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

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

Comments: User completely blew past the 3 reverts rule. I messaged him after he reverted my edit the first time, he ignored the message and continues to remove my edits without responding to me on his talk page, even after I had warned him. This user also has a history of abusing [sockpuppets and abusing the 3 edit rule]

Each revert was undoing the removal of Reliable sources of which WizdomT doesn't agree with, WizdomT also seems to think removing the sources is ok because the source is located within a link article. And even after explaining the reason for the revert's on my talk page continues to call for their removal.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 05:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

You did not explain the reverts before you blew based the 3 reverts rule. In addition, there is already reliable sourcing in the “football” section of the page. No other college athletics wikipedia page includes opinion

articles with championships listed. WizdomT (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

And like I have said to you on my talk page, edit notices, article talk pages and here, everything needs a source even if it's listed in two different places within the same article. But this isn't about that, this is about me reverting your removal of a source of which you yourself don't agree with, all because you view it as an unreliable opinion piece. Dcheagle • talk • contribs 06:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet no other college athletics wikipedia page includes opinion articles when it simply lists championships. Go to ANY other college athletics wiki page and it simply lists the national title season and nothing else. WizdomT (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a reliable third party source, the only one viewing it as unreliable is you. Then those articles need to be tagged as needing additional sources to back up the infromation found within them.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Then by all means, go ahead and start tagging each one as needing additional sources. I’ve taken care of OSU, good luck taking care of the others. WizdomT (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

And it’s not me viewing it as such, it’s what it is. An opinion piece that with outdated, (and false) information has no place being on a list that simply states national title years in various sports. WizdomT (talk) 06:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

While it might be outdated as it is an article from 2016 the information within was corrrect at the time of publishing and is being used to source the awarding of the 1945 championship and its reasioning behind the awarding as well.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Luckily for the both of us, I’ve found a better source that properly lists a summary of all national titles won by Oklahoma State, and none of them are in the form of an outdated opinion article that fails to source any of the content. WizdomT (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The Oklahoma Sooners wikipedia page lists 30 national titles without a single source, I’m expecting you to fix that soon, right? WizdomT (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, as such I have tagged the section as needing sources and will begin locating reliable third party sources to back up the information found within the section.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 07:38, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• WizdomT blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

User:174.234.164.132 reported by User:FifthFive (Result: Pages protected)

Page: Elkhorn High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 174.234.164.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC) "Created the page (stop editing it)"
2. 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC) "Created the page (scoured for two days, found no relevant information/pages)"
3. 23:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 22:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC) on User talk:174.234.164.132 "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• This anon has switched to using 174.201.104.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to continue this disruption. Page protection may need to happen here, especially on the redirect's target, Elkhorn Public Schools. Jalen Barks (Woof) 19:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for 3 months. Both redirect and target. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Snowstormfigorion reported by User:Selfstudier (Result: Blocked from page for a month

Page: 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2
3. Diff 3
4. Diff 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [146]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [147]

Comments:

In response to a request to self revert, reported editor commented on my talk page that I was being disruptive, see here. I have made exactly one revert on the page and otherwise have not edited the article in 2024. Editor clearly has no intention of arriving at a consensus and simply wishes to impose their view on the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

As stated in the talk page discussion, the article in question is a WP:CTOP, WP:ARBPIA article. An editor has made a major change, a valid, WP:BOLD one at that, to the article on the second. As per WP:CON, I objected to the change and restored to status quo providing a reasoning in the edit summary and the talk page. This was preceded by another editor undoing my revision and rightfully so due to not providing a rationale then. From there, a consensus-building process commenced in the talk page. In the midst of the former, Selfstudier implements one of the options discussed claiming that "consensus on the talk page seems clear" when only a handful of editors were involved and discussion was just in its beginning phases regarding, again, a major change to a high priority article, which should involve wide community and editorial consensus, and accuses me of long-term edit warring. As for the latter, whether I'm to blame for or not is up to the reviewing admin(s) to decide. As for their claim of me merely wanting to impose my view, it's utterly untrue. And concerning the disruptive annotation, it was as per WP:NHC pertaining to Selfstudier disrupting the consensus-developing procedure, which as stated in the article's talk page, may lead to a WP:RFC. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that this article is, due to its long-term CTOPS status (and, not noted above, but this is intensified by the above dispute involving the infobox, another contentious topic area), the best resolution I see at the moment is to go to 0RR regarding the infobox image. No reverting without consensus. Get other editors involved in this discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Snowstormfigorion, you tell Selfstudier on Talk that "it’s not your jurisdiction to decide that consensus has been reached in an ongoing discussion". But nor is it in your own jurisdiction to decide that 9 days of discussion (sic) between 6 editors is not enough. To implement the five-to-one (with you being the one) consensus at that point seems reasonable to me. And disagreeing with you, as all the other editors on Talk do, is not equivalent to "disrupting the consensus-developing procedure", however long you would like it to go on for. Nobody has violated WP:3RR, but I have blocked you from the article for a month for disruptive editing. I came here to tell you so, but found Daniel Case had already gone to 0RR. Do you wish to maintain that restriction, Daniel, now that Snowstormfigorion is page blocked? IMO it's only Snowstormfigorion, nobody else, who has been reverting against consensus. Bishonen | tålk 20:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC).

Alright, I was unaware that you had chosen that route. With one editor barred from it the problem won't be happening for a while. So I will lift that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bishonen: the former file existed as the article's infobox image for nearly two decades, so yes, changing it, as Daniel Case have suggested, should involve a wider community consensus; and again, given the article's CTOP and ARBPIA position. Also, if consensus is determined towards a collage, which images to be used should be also. Since, as mentioned in the article's talk page, one of the images is a cropped duplicate of one already in use in the body, and a picture of soldiers smiling and chatting isn't a fitting choice for representing a war of such scale and magnitude in my opinion, either. As everyone knows, this topic gets a lot of people riled up, so many editors choose to skip the former procedures, which the purpose of my reverts was to realize. Now, I understand if it came across as malicious or edit warry, but that was truly not my intention. If you feel it warrants blocking me from the page for a month, then fine, I won't contest that, but the only thing I ask for is at least for the infobox image to be restored to the former version in order for appurtenant consensus, on all regards, to be made. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Scatman.27 reported by User:Zacwill (Result: Partially blocked 1 year)

Page: Randolph Churchill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scatman.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [149]
2. [150]
3. [151]
4. [152]
5. [153]
6. [154]
7. [155]
8. [156]
9. [157]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See: Talk:Randolph Churchill#Avoiding edit war

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [159]

Comments:

This user has taken exception to a phrase in the Randolph Churchill article that he deems to be excessively humorous and has engaged in a slow-motion edit war in an effort to remove it, in spite of a consensus in favour of inclusion. His edits have been reverted by five other users. Zacwill (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Scatman.27, this is neither vandalism nor trolling; it lacks bad faith. You've been doing this for years as shown in the diffs above; please find something else to contribute about. You have made your point. The Task Center and the community portal contain helpful ideas for improving the encyclopedia by editing one of the 6,885,961 other articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Zacwill, I hope someone else than you performs the next revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 1 year ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

This has been a very tedious episode. I've just added some more comment to the talk page after opening another book.Paulturtle (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Necatorina reported by User:Zefr (Result: partially blocked 24h)

Page: Tetrachloroethylene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Necatorina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "I think I have explained myself several times. Stop edit warring."
2. 00:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "It is regarded as a toxin by American govt organisations, not a neutral point of view. Adding American-only sources do not improve the article. Undid revision 1247361764 by Zefr (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC) to 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
   1. 23:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247284481 by 65.206.92.82 (talk)"
   2. 23:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Health and safety */There are many chemicals used in dry cleaning. Just because some dry cleaners got cancer, doesn't mean that tetrachloroethylene caused it. They are also normal people, so they do smoke and drink alcohol. Both are known to cause various types of cancer. Animal researches aren't reliable for humans (remember : chocolate is toxic for dogs but not for humans)."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing fringe theories on Tetrachloroethylene."
2. 01:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tetrachloroethylene."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Industry Bias */ Reply"

Comments:

User has the adverse opinion that respected scientific government sources are not valid sources, and has warred far beyond the 24-hour 3RR. User is further ignoring mainstream science. User has not attempted to build consensus on the talk page, and instead has taken combative, uncivil positions that opposing editors using reputable sources have a wrong interpretation of the affirmed toxicity of the substance discussed in the article. Zefr (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Government organisations cannot be reliable for scientific matters. It is not "uncivil" to remove biased text with unreliable sources. Necatorina (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours from editing only the tetrachloroethylene article. The rest of Wikipedia is still availabe for Necatorina to edit. I will add: If you are going to argue against established Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:MEDORG, then you should do so on the guideline talk page, not by edit-warring or making statements on talk pages and edit summaries that fly in the face of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Themiromusic reported by User:162 etc. (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Fernando Garibay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Themiromusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Apologies for the malformed request. A look at the article history will confirm what I'm referring to. 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The warring goes back over a month it seems. With no talk page discussion. It looks more like a candidate for full protection or maybe a 1RR restriction. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

User:JerrySlimefeld reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked two weeks)

Page: Nicholas Alahverdian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JerrySlimefeld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Talk Page discussion of this edit has already occurred. If you would like to contribute, go to the talk page. Continued Vandalism will result in a ban from editing."
2. 18:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "If you would like to discuss the potential for putting a picture of the former Vice President in the article, please go to the talk page. Wikipedia is about collaboration so don't be afraid to speak up."
3. 16:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Please go to the talk page if you would like to discuss the addition of a picture of Mike Pence to this article."
4. 16:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Removed vandalism by user Just Step Sideways. Please post on the talk page why you think a picture of Mike Pence is appropriate for this article (it is not)."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nicholas Alahverdian."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Image of Alaverdian with Mike Pence */ new section"

Comments:

Reverting back to this version. MrOllie (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Lazered 99 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Minato Namikaze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lazered 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original redirect page (redirect to List of Naruto characters).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First edits by edit warrer
2. revert by I dream of horses
3. revert to preferred version by Lazered
4. revert to redirect by me
5. revert to preferred version by Lazered
6. second revert by me
7. third revert to preferred version by Lazered
8. third revert to redirect by me (see note below)
9. final revert by Lazered

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160] (not technically a uw-3RR, but plain text with the same gist.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161] (note on user's talk page rather than article talk page, explaining why the edit was inappropriate (mostly for WP:N and MOS:INUNIVERSE problems).

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [162]

Comments:

Note: I did technically revert this user's edits 3 times, but the third time was to revert what I perceived as a simple page blanking (here), but the user had restored their content before my revert, resulting in an edit conflict and somewhat confusing page history. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

User:2003:D3:FF39:6400::/56 reported by User:Graham87 (Result: Page semi-protected for 2 days)

Page: Frankie Valli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2003:D3:FF39:6400::/56 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))}}

Previous version reverted to: [163]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a because it's an IPV6 range, but they clearly know about 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: n/a, because impossible (see above)

Comments: I'm an admin but am obviously too involved to take administrative action. I probably haven't been a saint here either but after my attempt to start discussion which I noted here, they responded with this edit summary that makes no sense to me. Time zone issues also complicate this revert war. Yes, it's a /56 and not a /64 IPV6 range because of the way the ISP works in this case (link in German). Graham87 (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute where the IP is claiming BLP privacy reasons for removing those names. The edit timeline is as follows:
  • 16:54, 21 September 2024: IP removes the content, citing BLP and "notability";
  • 01:34, 22 September 2024: Graham restores the content (first time), saying that the edit was inconsistent and that becoming a professional stage actress with a stage name was worthy of note;
  • 08:43, 22 September 2024: IP reverts Graham (first time), saying that "All is non-notable";
  • 09:05, 22 September 2024: Graham reverts IP (second time), saying that the IP's edit summary was non-responsive to Graham's prior edit summary;
  • 12:07, 22 September 2024: IP reverts Graham (second time), by linking to WP:N;
  • 12:33, 22 September 2024: Graham reverts IP (third time), correctly noting that WP:N isn't about content in an article but is about creating standalone articles;
  • 16:10, 22 September 2024: IP reverts Graham (third time), saying that the content is non-notable and mentioning 3RR
  • 01:58, 23 September 2024: Graham reverts the IP (fourth time, albeit just outside of 24 hours), saying that there is no policy-based reason for the deletion and asking the IP to log in
  • 02:11, 23 September 2024: Graham self-reverts in good faith to avoid the appearance of 3RR gaming
  • 06:05, 23 September 2024: Graham opens a talk page discussion.
  • 06:08, 23 September 2024: Graham re-reverts, saying the WP:STATUSQUO should remain and to see comments on talk page
  • 06:17, 23 September 2024 – 07:57, 23 September 2024: Graham expands explanation on talk page
  • 16:20, 24 September 2024: IP reverts again (fourth time). The IP does not engage on the talk page.

In light of this all, I'm inclined to semi-protect the page for 2 days and allow for the status quo to be restored pending further discussion on the talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User:CottonDuggan reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: 1912 United States presidential election in Tennessee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: CottonDuggan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "For the last time. Don’t ever undo this edit again with the inaccurate map."
2. 03:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Stop edit warring please"
3. 03:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Stop reverting back to the inaccurate map. This is a better map with a better file name."
4. 03:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "These are the accurate shapes. Don’t ever undo this edit again please."
5. 03:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "These shapes are accurate."
6. 02:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Leave the original map alone and stop edit warring"
7. 02:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "The original map needs to be used. The shapes are accurate."
8. 02:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Stop edit warring and leave the original map alone. We’ve started using these shapes for these files since 2023."
9. 02:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "The original map needs to be here. Don’t ever undo this edit again please. You’re the one doing the edit warring."
10. 02:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "I told you to don’t ever undo this edit again and you won’t listen and won’t stop edit warring."
11. 02:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Don’t ever undo this edit again. The old maps need to be used."
12. 02:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Leave the old map alone and stop edit warring"
13. 02:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Leave the old file alone and stop edit warring. These are the accurate shapes."
14. 02:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Use the old map file to overwrite instead of making a new image file"
15. 02:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Use the old map."
16. 20:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "The old map has the accurate shapes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Both this user and GatewayPolitics are both edit warring on the article, going beyond the WP:3RR. R0paire-wiki (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been trying to explain to GatewayPolitics that the old map needs to be used and he uploaded a redundant file of the same map with different shapes of the counties and the shapes on the old map have been used for election maps for counties since December 2022. CottonDuggan (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

if you go to this user's talk section, you can see that I've been trying to explain to them why my map is the better version. If you guys agree with what I told him, could you lock the page from continuing edit Wars because it's going to continue GatewayPolitics (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User:GatewayPolitics reported by User:R0paire-wiki (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: 1912 United States presidential election in Tennessee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: GatewayPolitics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "I don't think you understand what checking your talk page means"
2. 03:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Check your talk page."
3. 03:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247617987 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
4. 03:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247617774 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
5. 03:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247617608 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
6. 03:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "COUNTY LINES are inaccurate."
7. 02:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247616790 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
8. 02:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247616634 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
9. 02:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247616204 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
10. 02:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247615890 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
11. 02:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "YOU started warring. stop replacing the accurate map with the inaccurate one."
12. 02:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247615141 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
13. 02:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247615017 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
14. 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247614543 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
15. 02:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247613996 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
16. 02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1247610736 by CottonDuggan (talk)"
17. 01:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC) "Nope. county lines have changed. https://digital.newberry.org/ahcb/map/map.html#TN"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Both this user and CottonDuggan are both edit warring on the article, going beyond the WP:3RR. R0paire-wiki (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@R0paire-wiki I do apologize that I have been in a heated edit war. I've been trying to explain to the user what I've been doing and they are not making any sense GatewayPolitics (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.Bbb23 (talk) 03:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Sketchbuild reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 1 week)

Page: Water ionizer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sketchbuild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "same as before."
2. 21:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Removed opinion and opinion sources. Removed citation unrelated to subject. Removed statements that are elaborated upon in further sections."
3. 20:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Rephrased statements to relay the conclusions of relevant research more accurately."
4. 16:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Published research on the effects of consuming alkaline water is not fringe/minority. The effect of consuming alkaline water is related to machines that produce alkaline water."
5. 16:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision. Unrelated citation to statement. Secondary citation states further inquiry needed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Pseudoscience */ new section"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC) to 21:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC) on User talk:MrOllie

Comments:

New user, edit warring to remove text pointing out that alkaline water use is pseudoscientific. Has been made aware of contentious topics restrictions on this area and kept edit warring. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Clear removal of the same material ("such claims in the pseudoscientific realm") at 16:22, 16:46, 20:30, 21:08, and 21:36. Warned at 16:56. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

  I also left a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User:CrashD2025 reported by User:Dont trap anna (Result: Declined)

Page: Psyche (mythology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: CrashD2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [169] Original edit and my reversion directing User:CrashD2025 to read the style guide after confirming that the article was originally written in BCE/CE format. This can be seen here [170] proving that User:CrashD2025's comment "restored universal gregorian designations" is not a restoration of an original format but a new format that they have decided is 'correct'.
2. [171] another back and forth with User:CrashD2025. Their edit explanation, "removing nascent patois unknown to the ancients to which this article points" is nonsense considering that BC and AD were not used in the 2nd century.
3. 3RR violation (I acknowledge the violation is both mine and theirs.)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. See above

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [172]

Comments:

I am unsure how to resolve this issue when User:CrashD2025 does not have a talk page. Please advise. This lead me to violating the 3RR rule, for which I apologize. I wasn't sure how to proceed when I could not contact the user and was hoping that they would soon give up. Please advise on any discrepancies or errors in this report as it is my first! Thank you. Dont trap anna (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Dont trap anna: If a user does not have a talk page, you would simply write a comment and publish the edit the same you would as if you were creating a new section on a page, this creates the page. I've left them a talk page comment. While you were both edit warring, it should be noted that WP:3RR is more than three reverts on a single page. I would suggest writing an explanation on the talk page explaining why you have been reverting the edit, and invite the editor to participate in that discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh: Thank you so much for your advice. I am relieved to learn that I had not yet broken WP:3RR but chagrined to have edit warred. I will certainly edit the section on the talk page to further explain why I have been reverting their edits. Thank you for also commenting on their talk page. Do I need to do anything else? What should I do if they ignore your comments and the discussion on Talk:Psyche? Do I modify this report or create a new one? Dont trap anna (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Dont trap anna: If the report is still up you can comment here, but otherwise you can either leave me a message or open a new report. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh Awesome! Thank you so much. Dont trap anna (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined The editor is a new editor that was not properly warned on their talk page so I will not block them at this point. @CrashD2025: if edit warring continues without a WP:CONSENSUS to change the MOS:ERA, you may be blocked to prevent further disruption to the article. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Crashed greek reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: Declined)

Page: Maratha Resurrection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crashed greek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]
4. [176]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [179]

Comments:

• Not within 24 hours, but certainly an attempt to game the system, as the fourth revert was made just outside the 24-hour period. PadFoot (talk)

This is backdoor attempt by the User:PadFoot2008 to bypass the WP:AFD process. He has no right to delete an article by redirecting. I have undone his deletion, I have not undone any edit to his text as such. I would not have reverted if it was any article text editing by him. Crashed greek (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't give you any right to violate 3RR at your own will. The article lacks any notability, or RS confirming the existence of such a period, and is a clear case of a WP:OR by an editor, but I retained it as a redirect to the main article (Maratha Confederacy), as many articles had links to it. PadFoot (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support WP:BOOMERANG it appears User:PadFoot2008 is attempting to backdoor delete. The article should probably go to AfD though, fwiw. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have not broken 3RR nor do I intend to break 3RR, nor do I have an intention of editwarring. I know reporters don't have any 'immunity', but I know what 3RR is, and do not intend to break it or engage in editwarring, look at the page history, I've not reverted anymore since. On the other hand, Crashed greek has indeed violated 3RR and has been warned for it too. Also, @Kcmastrpc, could you please tell what is backdoor deleting? I have never heard of that term before except in this case. If there is an issue, I've no problem doing to an AfD. PadFoot (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Editors involved in an edit war don't necessarily need to cross the red line of 3RR to be considered subjects of edit warring sanctions. With regards to backdoor, see WP:NOBLANK and WP:PRESERVE. Since this isn't a BLP, it's hard for me to believe it was imperative to edit war on this article over a redirect. I suspect this article wouldn't survive WP:AFD, but just blanking the page over WP:OR sidesteps processes Wikipedia has in place to find consensus for verification issues (see WP:FAIL). Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry @Kcmastrpc, I wasn't aware of those. I have opened an AfD now, I would appreciate your participation. PadFoot (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Declined The article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha Resurrection, and should remain as a standalone article during that discussion. @PadFoot2008: If you make a WP:BLAR that is then contested, discuss it on the article's talk page or another appropriate venue (the proposed target's talk page, for example) rather than edit warring. Creating this comment a few minutes before you created this report, but well after all of the reverts were made by both of you, does not come across as an attempt at discussion. Aoidh (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also to be clear, @PadFoot2008: please note that Wikipedia:Edit warring states that The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. The only reason you weren't blocked for this is because the article is now being discussed at AfD, so I don't expect that reverts will continue at this point. - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh, thank you. PadFoot (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Glass Snow reported by User:Parqs (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Hunter Schafer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Glass Snow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Version being reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert 1 07:44, 25 September 2024‎ Undid revision 1247645930 by Parqs (talk) Rv unexplained edit
2. Revert 2 21:15, 25 September 2024‎ If it is stated a “hundred times in the article” it should be in the lead sentence, per MOS:LEAD. Moreover it says they made their debut in a trans acting role, not that they are trans in the lead.
3. Revert 3 06:42, 26 September 2024‎ Other articles do not dictate how this one is written. Being transgender is a highly WP:NOTABLE aspect of this individual, their career, and activism. It should not be excluded from the lead simply because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Please do not edit war any further.
4. Revert 4 08:00, 26 September 2024‎ Edit warring behavior by Parqs, dodging WP:3RR by only a few minutes. If there is some syntactical error with the phrasing, please adjust it instead of non-constructively reverting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor warned me of 3RR after my 2nd revert promptly before violating the rule themselves

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: We have spoken on my talk page

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

Comments:

I did not warn the editor of the 3RR but the user warned me of it and then proceeded to break it themselves. Editor has previously reverted other editors making this same change to the article. We did not have a discussion in the article talk page but did have a brief discussion on my talk page. Editor made their 4th revert 16 minutes outside of the 24 hour rule. parqs (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back reported by User:87Fan (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable; both warned)

Page: Lori Mattix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Horse Eye's Back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [180]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [181]
2. [182]
3. [183]
4. [184]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [185]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [186]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [187]

Comments:
I think my comments got lost in my initial edit. Horse Eye's Back has been warned off of edits on the David Bowie page already (see the very lengthy discussions at Talk:David_Bowie (here's a link to a diff [188]), and set up the new Lori Mattix page to host the content there instead. I have been updating the page with sourced content etc., trying my best to maintain WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR because I am aware of the delicate nature of this content. However, Horse Eyes' Back continues to revert content, often citing WP:BLP.

• Not even sure where to start with this one... Thats not four reverts, its three (the first two are sequential). That EW warning comes after all of the edits and immediately before the ANEW notice, there are no edits post notice. That is not a "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page." The link to the David Bowie talk page does not support the statement made... I did not set up the Lori Mattix page. 87Fan may be trying their best... But they don't seem to be able to overcome an immense pro-Bowie bias. It is true that I cited BLP as my reason for reverting, I believe that I did so correctly and as directed unambiguously by policy. In specific regard to EW we had content here that was biased and unsourced/poorly sourced. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As Horse Eye's Back correctly states, they reverted only 3x; however, both HEB and 87Fan are edit warring and may find themselves blocked without notice if they continue. Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Xslyq reported by User:Symphony Regalia (Result: Page protected)

Page: Assassin's Creed Shadows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xslyq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff 1
2. Diff 2
3. Diff 3
4. Diff 4
5. Diff 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning by another editor [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [192]

Comments:

User registered in 2017, and then made their first edit one week ago to strong-arm poorly sourced nationalist POVs/WP:FRINGE in the Assassin's Creed Shadows article, using a website that denies the Nanking Massacre.

User was warned by both another editor[193] and myself to stop edit warring and wait for discussion before forcing changes given that said changes were opposed by multiple editors on talk[194] [195][196]. User then misrepresented discussion as closed, started a RfC with selective notification (failing to notify the editor who told him to stop editing warring), and then immediately continued to revert to force their change without waiting for the RfC that concerns the change. Symphony Regalia (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I did not violate 3RR.I have been actively trying to resolve the dispute.

The editor referred to by Symphony Regalia was not directly involved in the discussion of the article, but was only involved because of previous disputes with IP users. A compromise consensus had indeed been reached before Symphony Regalia itself revised it without discussion.

I also strongly disagree with the accusation that was poorly sourced, which can be found here. I'm simply reverting to Symphony Regalia's behavior of removing content at the time of the ongoing RfC.Xslyq (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: User did violate 3RR (Revert diffs 2, 3, 4, 5 take place between 04:02 24 September 2024 and 03:41, 25 September 2024). Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

During the ongoing RfC, the version of Symphony Regalia should be considered disruptive editing.Therefore, I think did not violate 3RR.Xslyq (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for two weeks by Acalamari. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

User:AneasSu reported by User:Roffaduft (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Plancherel theorem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AneasSu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [197] 09:38, 26 September 2024 - Clarification of "frequency spectrum", which is ambiguous
2. [198] 12:38, 27 September 2024 - Added a proof, without removing the lead section. A proof may help many learners to understand it, so if its layout is inappropriate, please be so kind to fix it instead of deleting the proof.
3. [199] 13:03, 27 September 2024
4. [200] 13:34, 27 September 2024
5. [201] 13:55, 27 September 2024 - Undid vandalism

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [204]

Comments:

User fully ignores the reasons why his edits get reverted and continues to copy/paste the exact same statement. I've tried to address the issue on the user's talk page, but to no avail.

Accusations by Roffaduft about both edit warring and lack of verifiability are false.

1. I did not violate 3RR, since from 13:55, 26 September 2024 to 13:55, 27 September 2024, I undid the editions of Roffaduft 3 times, not more than 3 revisions.

2. The accusation about verifiability by Roffaduft is also invalid, since the Proof section written by me can be verified from reliable sources, as the theorems used in the proof are quoted from other wikipedia pages, and the demonstration is logically consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AneasSu (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yet, you provided zero reliable sources. Don’t create a false narrative by suggesting you did. Roffaduft (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, direct quotations are reliable sources, and logical statements are universally verifiable. Stop vandalizing other people’s works AneasSu (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere did you use direct quotations.

Also, please stop with the spiteful, unsupported accusations of vandalism, here and on my talkpage, just because of this edit warring dispute.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AneasSu: The policy says the exact opposite about direct quotations, i.e., that quotations must be supported by an inline source. It says nothing about "logical statements" at all, let alone that they are "universally verifiable". Finally, stop calling other editors' comments or edits vandalism. It's a personal attack, and if you persist, I will block you for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding the verifiability criteria. I will refer to a textbook to justify the theorems used in the proof.

AneasSu (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours As often noted, you can avoid violating 3RR without edit warring. This is not an editorial area covered by 3RRNO. After several days, it just got more intense today, and again the discussion that should have taken place on the talk page took place here. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

User:C.monarchist28 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: European Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: C.monarchist28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248196891 by Moxy (talk) You have not yet given one valid concern that was not immediately explained"
2. 05:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248195866 by Moxy (talk) Moxy's beyond ridiculous concerns have been addressed in the talk page. I have stated if anybody else adds it, that is fine, but Moxy does not understand this subject. Stop this edit war. Your concerns are rooted in lack of knowledge, Moxy. PLEASE SEE TALK PAGE: MOXY STATING CONCERNS OF ARABS WHO ARE COUNTED AS WHITE - I HAVE CLEARED THIS TO THEM ALREADY!"
3. 05:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248194494 by Moxy (talk) If any other editors would like to add this, go ahead. But not Moxy, who has shown an inability to understand basic concepts of race and ethnic identity, and who is not very familiar with census-taking, how their information is collected. Moxy's concerns on the Talk page are comedy gold and laughable. Cannot take them seriously.
4. 05:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "This is not disputed information. The white populations shown are a fact and are published by the government. If you would like to discuss whether French Canadians can be confirmed to have European ancestry, keep it all on the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [205]

[206]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Very simply put not all people who self-identified as white are of European descent...many that claim to be white are of North African descent or middle eastern descent. Your restoration of the data in the infobox of white people encompasses more than what this article encompasses.... because not all white people identify with being European."

Comments:

Simply trying to add inline dispute tag about content (stats) dispute to attract more input by others. Have also been insulted a few times....however ....think best thing here is simply a page block over site block so they can participate in talks when others chime in. Moxy🍁 06:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The only person who isn't following proper guidelines (save for me insulting you, which I should probably stop) is Moxy, because her dispute is baseless.

She is concerned of people who identify as white but are not European in ancestry. The census does not ask if you are white, it only asks what your ethnic origin is, and then categorizes people racially based on that. White includes European and other non-visible minority and non-Indigenous groups. Her concern does not make sense, and I will not be taking them seriously. She is in the wrong for edit warring me instead of responding to her with (my complete logic - she does not respond, but keeps re-adding her baseless dispute). Moxy also made comments calling it "original research" and an "assumption" that French Canadians have European ancestry. I will continue to remove her dispute whenever she puts them on, because I am firm and sure that she is putting forth a baseless dispute and is not responding to what I am saying to refute it.C.monarchist28 (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no purpose to getting input from other's when you HAVE NO REAL CONCERN TO BEGIN WITH. The dispute you are trying to enter has a false claim itself!!!!!!!! C.monarchist28 (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As you were told and shown others have talk about this before...

• Talk:European Canadians#The Basic Population Number
• Talk:European Canadians#Split re-direct 'White Canadians' and 'European Canadians'
• Talk:European Canadians#Two tables in "Demographics" section contain Original research

Moxy🍁 06:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

What I have added is different. I have significantly, significantly improved the page. This link[207] is the page before I edited it. I believe an all around significant improvement has been done. These talk pages you are linking are irrelevant to the edits I have done today. My argument also still stands - your dispute is baseless and you have also demonstrated horribly poor knowledge on how the census is taken/published and on ethnic identity in general. "French Canadian does not necessarily mean European ancestry" LOL C.monarchist28 (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

We cant guess link for a second time for you WP:SYNTH. Moxy🍁 06:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Moxy has a problem with the fact that European = White according to Statistics Canada (non-visible minority and non-Indigenous). The map on the European Canadians page already shows not just the 52% who nominated European ancestry but anyone who had European ancestry - if the map only depicted European origin responses and not other white responses (Canadian ethnicity), then rural Quebec would not be as 90%+ European as is already shown on the map, it would be around 50%.

Instead of accepting they are the same thing (White and European, at least according to Statistics Canada), she would like to create a second page, one for European Canadians and one for White Canadians. I hope it is clear why I kept reverting these false disputed notices by Moxy. She called it "original research", "an assumption" that French Canadians have European ancestry. Look at our discussion on the talk page of European Canadians! Anyone can see this, right? I'm not crazy! C.monarchist28 (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere does Statistics Canada conflate the racial term "white" with the geographic origin term "European". White Canadians are not necessarily the same as European Canadians. Moxy🍁 07:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for WP:3RR and WP:UNCIVIL (Particularly Special:Diff/1248259424). Aoidh (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Rade777 reported by User:Allan Nonymous (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: FK Jugohrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rade777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "Revision"
2. 18:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "Page"
3. 18:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "New article"
4. 17:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "New site update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on FK Jugohrom."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Allan Nonymous "/* FK Jugohrom */ Reply"

Comments:

• Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Dcheagle reported by User:Rockeez (Result: Reporter blocked as sock)

Page: Oklahoma State Cowboys football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcheagle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [208]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [209] “Reverted”
2. [210] “Reverted”
3. [211] “Reverted”
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [212]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [213] Did not respond to any of my questions about him removing information without a reason.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [214]

Comments: I’m not sure what’s going on, but Dcheagle removed information without an explanation, did not respond to talk page messages, and then falsely accused me of being a sock puppet.

Reporting user has been blocked for Sockpuppetry see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DylanPuma20.Dcheagle • talk • contribs 02:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Ecrusized reported by User:Zabezt (Result: Given CTOPS ARBHORN alert)

User randomly started/attempted to start an edit war on Somali Civil War and Somali Civil War (2009-present) recently, and is refusing to discuss with anyone to come to consensus. I have tried messaging them on the following talk pages;

File talk:Somali Civil War (2009-present).svg

Ecrusized’s talk page.

The user argues that my edits aren’t referenced, (they are referenced here) and that I’m doing this to make my country (Somalia) look good, also saying that I said that myself, (which I don’t recall ever doing)

Diffs of edit warring:

22:46, 29 September 2024 “Revert unreferenced edits by user Zabezt. Who has said that they are changing the map to make Somalia look better.”

16:49, 30 September 2024 “Undid revision 1248626532 by Zabezt”

22:45, 29 September 2024 “Revert unreferenced edits by user Zabezt. Who has said that they are changing the map to make Somalia look better.”

16:49, 30 September 2024 “Undid revision 1248626712 by Zabezt”

So far I got no response, and I doubt I ever will. And if you guys decline this, what suggestions do you have? Every time I try to talk to the user, they ghost me! Zabezt (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no immunity for reporters. You have made the same amount of reverts as the user you are reporting, including the latest revision of the article before opening this notice. I suggest to the admin viewing this that the filer gets blocked for opening a retaliatory notice. Ecrusized (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not saying that I’m innocent, Ecrusized. I’m simply reporting you because YOU. ARE. NOT. DISCUSSING. WITH. ANYONE. What else could I have done in this situation? Let you ignore me while you literally LIE about me? It’s not like you were gonna respond anyway. Zabezt (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the user from a month ago accusing me of telling "lies" about "their country". Which they "don't recall ever doing". For the context of the dispute, I am trying to add a map that cites sources, and user Zabezts has been constantly removing it and replacing it with a map that doesn't cite sources, they later added some references that are fail verifications to the file. Ecrusized (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I said you were lying about my country, (which I apologized for saying btw) You said that I said I made the map to “Make Somalia look good.”

and Ecrusized, the map that is currently up is sourced. And it has been for a week now. Zabezt (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, Zabezt is rambling about me "not discussing" the issue, probably because he believes not discussing gives him a right to edit war or report others. For the context, I discussed the issue with him over a lengthy period but they just keep going around the issue, not getting to the point, prolonging the discussion to infinity and beyond. So I have no reason to waste my time discussing the same thing I have already told them again and again every single day. Ecrusized (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is because your argument is the same again and again, when ive disproved it multiple times. So I want to continue where we left off. Zabezt (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ecrusized all you have done is use your experience on Wikipedia to try to get be banned or removed from Wikipedia, when we could’ve ended this back in August, all you’re doing is trying to find a reason of why I shouldn’t be here, when I am literally a new user. I just started, I don’t know all of the rules or guidelines. But I guess you don’t understand that, huh? Zabezt (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If you believe that I handled that discussion wrong/badly, we can have an actual one this time. I don’t wanna fight or argue with you. I simply want this article and others similar to it to be true. Zabezt (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Declined Only because until I just gave them one, Ecrusized had not received a CTOPS alert for WP:CT/HORN and thus, per the DS notice on Talk:Somali Civil War (2009-present), could not be blocked for a pretty clear 1RR vio on the article. (This makes about the fourth or fifth CTOP they've gotten alerted on ... is this a record?). Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Βατο reported by User:DonCalo (Result: Declined)

Page: Languages of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Βατο (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248472377 by DonCalo (talk): WP:BRD seek consensus in talk page for dubious and disputed changes in the lede"
2. 18:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "rv, stick to the source. Restored content with quote from the cited source. For clarity: Arbëresh is a variety of the officially recognized language"
3. 17:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "rv, not an improvement, restored the language family officially recognized as language minority"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */ new section"
2. 19:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */"
3. 19:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */ Reply"
4. 20:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC) "/* Arbëreshë speak Arbëresh, not Albanian */ Reply"

Comments:

Please stop pushing your rather one-sided opinion. "Arbërisht is not standard Albanian", and that is what the Arbëreshë speak, not Albanian. DonCalo (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment :I did not break the 3rr, User:DonCalo wanted to change with several reverts the WP:STABLE version of the lede by adding WP:original research that was against the cited source (Norme in materia di tutela delle minoranze linguistiche storiche, Italian parliament, retrieved 2015-10-17), and without discussing it in talk page. I asked them to seek consensus in talk page for that edit, and now we are discussing it in talk page, but they have not yet provided sources for the change they want to make in the lede. – Βατο (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Really? There is nor WP:original research. I used sources, kindly provided User:Βατο himself, to try to make clear that his interpretation is rather one-sided, which is now discussed here. And I did not start warnings about 3rr, Βατο did. DonCalo (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  The official source of the law expressly states "Albanian", and the reliable source I provided confirms it. I warned you because you changed the content for the third time, without starting a talk page discussion to seek consensus, but you too did not break the 3rr, and I did not report you. This is a content dispute that we are addressing in talk page without engaging in an edit war. – Βατο (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Declined The content that Bato did, in fact, restore more than three times in 24 hours has since been removed as copyvio, but without any indication that Bato was aware that it was (but you are now). So, since there is no likelihood of the edit war continuing, and you are discussing on talk, I think we can let this go for now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I did not restore copyvio content, that was a new addition by User:DonCalo in the article's body, removed immediately after by User:Diannaa. I just restored the WP:STABLE version of the lede, clearly not "more than three times in 24 hours", and asked for discussion through WP:BRD, which we are continuing in talk page, without engaging in edit war. My last edit in that page is not a revert of other editors, I only added a reference. – Βατο (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Sorry for that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

May I step in? I believe the dispute originates from the type of source used: from the linguistics side, from the sociolinguistics side, and from the political side (I mean it in a neutral way). To me, one could assess which source provides the most accurate information, and which side of the subject matter the article should focus on. Then, one moves to select the source that aligns with the direction of the article. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 10:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Excellent ... maybe you'd be willing to add this to the talk page discussion? Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd be glad too. KHR FolkMyth (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Daniel Case, just a note. I have not been involved in the content dispute so far, but I would have done the same reverts done by Bato. On Arberesh language DonCalo is misusing sources to push an idea that even the sources do not make. DonCarlo wrote that "Although Albanian is recognized as a minority language by Italian law, several sources recognize Arbëresh as a distinct language related to Albanian". If you read the quotes from the Minority Rights Group International and Cambridge Language Collective, they don't say Arberesh is a "distinct language related to Albanian". Arberesh as a language is a variety or dialect of Albanian, which has big differences with standard Albanian (the official form used by Albania). It might not be a coincidance that just a few days ago another admin warned DonCao for source misuse [215] (writing things the source does not say [216]). The copyright breaches too seem to not be a coincidance, as DonCao had been warned about that as well in the past [217][218]. I hope DonCalo reflects on the issues, as they indeed are serious ones. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  When we review reports here, we do not care about the content but the conduct, unless the reverts are within the narrow content-based BLP exception allowed under 3RRNO. Had you made the same reverts, you would have been edit warring as well. The issues you raise are better off at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Daniel Case, I know, but the issues raised at my note above still serve their purpose, to urge DonCarlo to reflect on their own conduct. And no, I don't want to report DonCarlo anywhere, be it ANI/I or another drama board. I don't know the editor enough. When I said I would do the same reverts as Bato, I meant I would revert on all articles that Bato reverted DonCarlo, not that I would do the same revert multiple times. I know the difference between defending article quality from edit warring. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, just so you know ... we have blocked people for reverting across multiple articles even if they didn't violate 3RR on any of them. It's better in situations like that to request protection before things get out of control, as long as the user isn't responding to talk or warnings.

  Also, I think because of the issues involved in this I would be justified in putting a CTOPS notice on the talk page under ARBEE, even though it's geographically outside of that area. What do you think? Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Daniel Case, I don't think that doing a revert on each of the 2 or 3 articles involved would justify a block - IMO it would be utter nonsense. If there would be several reverts on each of multiple articles, then yeah, and I have seen such blocks being applied to editors in the past.

  Although the Arbereshe are in Italy, the topic is covered by the ARBEE, so IMO leaving a CTOPS notice is a good idea for both Languages of Italy and Arberesh language. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, one revert across several articles isn't a problem. It's when it's two or three per day for several days running.

  I have placed CTOPS notices on both articles' talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User: Lord Ruffy98 reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Shahid (Algeria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lord Ruffy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [219]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:59, 2 October 2024: "The war was an indipendence war not a religious one; please don't mix the things. Undid revision 1248932090 by Skitash (talk)"
2. 13:11, 2 October 2024: "In fact I kept the name change for now as it makes sense. For the rest you changed the references to religious elements like shuhuda and mujahideen which in this context have different meanings than the Algerian ones as expressed in the sources. Please refrain from edit warring. Undid revision 1248962817 by Skitash (talk)"
3. 13:28, 2 October 2024: "The grammatical errors get corrected. Islamic context has nothing to do with the definition of the shuhada. Please use the Talk page; I suggest you refrain from edit warring WP:AVOIDEDITWAR IUndid revision 1248964967 by Skitash (talk)"
4. 13:42, 2 October 2024: "WP:CIRNOT Undid revision 1248966675 by Skitash (talk)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [220]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [221]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [222]

Comments:

This user appears to be exercising WP:OWN over this article they seemingly translated from French Wikipedia. They consistently insist on retaining the grammatical and spelling errors they introduced, such as "Indipendence" and "theirrelease", along with improper capitalization of nouns, such as "algerian". They're aware of this and refuse to permit the corrections. Following this, they started edit warring on my own talk page. They have demonstrated similar behavior to push their POV on other articles, raising concerns over WP:CIR and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Skitash (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As i said in the object your argumentation about the fact that the war of indipendence was fought within an islamic context doesn't mean that have the same meaning as mujahideen in Islam is different and there is nothing there which can explain better the meaning in this context.

[A] "Your argument that 'shuhada' and 'mujahideen' has a different meaning in Algeria makes no sense, as the war of independence was fought within an Islamic context. "

The same thing for the shuhuda as it's a different thing.

The definition of those are available here as i writed the source [223][2[ more precisly Titre 2- Chap 1.

On the French community of Wikipedia you can also find this page that explain the difference between a Moudjahid in Islam and in the context of Algerian War.

[B] I agreed with the change of the name so i didn't revert everything cause some correction we're usefull.

After i reverted the edit the user that cited me keeped reverting in a loop without following my advice to argue onto the talk page.

His accusation of WP:OWN is false as apart this user only Braganza modified the article. Anyone can edit the page as long as they use correct information; this should be the basis of Wikipedia; I am open to future changes if someone thinks something should be changed further and indeed I ask you to provide sources and information or edit the article yourself if you have something to add.

As regards grammatical errors can be modified on a second edit without a complete revert but you didn't do it. [C]

He avoided discussions also by deleting my warnings. [D]

I would prefer not to use this argument but the user in question has often shown to take it out on several users especially in reference to dynamics that see the Berber language on Algerian Talk page, ethnicity and other topics. So the accusation of WP:BATTLEGROUND should be given to him. Also i see a bad behavI have always sought dialogue, in fact after every edit prior to today I have requested his attention on his talk page to find a meeting point; the result has always been absolute failure to dialogue by not responding or not following when discussed in the talk pages of other pages. Here is an example.

I also note a difficult behavior to interact with from the person in question since he deletes any edit that adds Berber elements under the Algerian pages as if to maintain personal control WP:OWN over the pages and maintain an anti-Berber position.

But that's another topic but since he accused me of Battleground I thought it was necessary to say it.

I would like to say a final word about my defense; I have not been writing actively for a very long time and the user in question has never been kind or willing to help improve the articles, obviously, I speak of my experience, I do not know if with others it has been better. #WP:NOBITING

P.S. Sorry if my English is not perfect. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:4B5E:FE0:C515:EE68:8B3E:327F reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: 48 hour block)

Page: Yahshua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2607:FEA8:4B5E:FE0:C515:EE68:8B3E:327F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249022007 by Adakiko (talk)"
2. 19:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248839915 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
3. 13:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1248839915 by Tgeorgescu (talk). It is not impossible. Please do not leverage the writings of one biblical scholar and leverage that as "fact". This page should stay unbiased as just stating the origin of the name."
4. Consecutive edits:
   1. [224]
   2. [225]
   3. [226]
   4. [227]
   5. [228]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Yahshua."
2. 19:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Yahshua."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Peddles WP:FRINGE views. Also active as 69.77.185.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Result:

Page protected for seven days. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Stormm001 reported by User:PARAKANYAA (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Waikino school shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stormm001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [229]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [230]
2. [231]
3. [232]
4. [233]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

Notification: [235]

Comments:
User repeatedly is inserting OR as to what model of firearm was used, is ignoring any criticism claiming they are a firearms expert and this exempts them from OR rules. Has also repeatedly inserted an unreliable source. Has resisted my attempt to discuss this on the talk page and just keeps inserting this information. (never filed a report here sorry if i did it wrong) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

After this report Stormm has self reverted so consider this retracted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Object404 reported by User:STSC (Result: Fully protected one week)

Page: Sabina Shoal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Object404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [237]
2. [238]
3. [239] - A multiple reversion which reverted 3 different edits in one go
4. See no.3
5. See no.3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [240]; [241]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [242]; [243]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [244]

Comments:
Object404 has the bad habit of quick reverting. We find it very unacceptable. STSC (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@STSC Was actually the first one to be edit warring, so I left a notice at his talk page to refrain from doing so. I guess he's decided to escalate things here to pre-empt me.

@STSC has been uncivil in accusing me of cherry-picking content and POV-pushing and has been deleting well-cited items not to his liking. He's actually been advocating for False balance. He has also been deleting relevant content in the article that fact-checks Chinese government disinformation (public domain videos of China Coast Guard ships ramming Philippine ships in the area of the article subject. The Chinese government has been stating that it was the Philippine ships ramming Chinese ships).

I am going to refrain from editing the articles in question for a few days to let things settle down.

-Object404 (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I did not start any edit war at all; me and other editors have tried to make a compromise but Object404 keeps on his/her quick reverting tactic to intimidate other editors. STSC (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, STSC. I don't see where the "compromise" is in this latest discussion you brought up in the talk page. From what I can see in the article, you're insisting that a Philippine government source (which, in this case, are the videos Object404 has put in the article showing China Coast Guard ships ramming Philippine vessels) is "biased", never mind that the authenticity of the videos in question, and that they were not edited to support a Philippine claim, aren't in dispute.

I will leave it to other admins to decide on the merits of this report, but I will say that your actions don't particularly hint at supporting WP:NPOV. Removing content while not adding additional context does not hint at objectivity; rather, it appears like POV-pushing. I would encourage you to read up on WP:WFTO and consider that merely removing content that you may find objectionable, but otherwise have strong historical and editorial value, undermines your claim that you're trying to be neutral. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I have never accused that the Philippine government source is biased or false at all. I removed the Philippine Coast Guard's media as per fact-picking: "Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject (positive and negative), a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. As such, fact picking is a breach of neutral point of view". And I absolutely do not agree to your observation. STSC (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• In Object404's defense, his reversions were to reinstate back content that were removed by STSC. I don't particularly find the reason STSC gave to remove the content convincing. The article is discussing an event, and STSC removed media that is extremely relevant to the discussed event, stating that it is "cherry-picking". —seav (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• I've fully protected the article for one week. There's too much edit-warring going on by multiple users, of whom the worst offenders are STSC and Object404. The editors can of course continue to discuss the disputes on the article Talk page, but I strongly urge them to do so in a civil manner (although not ideal, accusing someone of cherry picking is pretty mild stuff in a content dispute). In addition, after protection expires, any editor who was previously edit-warring may be blocked without notice if they reinstate their version without having first reached a clear consensus on the Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sher Singh 45 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Zamindar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sher Singh 45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "Who is this idiot reverting again and again?Malicious intent? The source that you are quoting have you gone through it? The reference is ONLY AND ONLY for a disadvantaged and backward Eastern region and not for the country in general. Also it is in contradiction with the Muslim Zamindar given in the picture. Use your two brain cells. There is nothing more to talk."
2. 17:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Deleted a sentence which was missing the correct regional context regarding communities."
3. 06:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Corrected clear contradiction in the page regarding religion of Zamindars."
4. 15:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Zamindar."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps removing longstanding sourced content despite requests to discuss and seek WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page. Also note WP:UNCIVIL comment in this edit summary. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

May be a sock of Truthfindervert, since their addition of Punjab - [245] [246] was removed by another user, and hence possibly wanted to remove this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked by Black Kite at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

User:80.3.122.252 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked one month)

Page: Bluebird K7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.3.122.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article has been contentious for some time (see the IP talk: page) and there is one particular IP with a fixation on it and no other edits elsewhere than this and closely related articles. A new section has just been added, which is a comment on the legal aspects here from a solid legal academic source. While the case has been reported and sourced elsewhere, this is the only source going further into the legal aspects and meets WP:SECONDARY, just as we encourage.

The IP editor disagrees and is now repeatedly removing it. For a seeming variety of reasons, of shrinking relevance to our policies. In particular, it's not true that all the information in this ref is adequately covered by the basic factual reporting of the BBC ref.

1. "removed unnecessary and overly complex editing.The BBC article has been updated and all info is now corrected and available to read there."
2. "Undid revision [removed assumptions and opinions because they are not required. All info is avaibke within citation links. This section is being made overlay complicated and it is not required when the corrected links, facts and references speak fir themselves."
3. "paragraph contain ‘perhaps’ and perhapsim and therefore not in line with wiki rules. Already this article has multiple detailparticular audience."
4. "Removed. A legal case study showing Bill Smith may have unwittingly sealed his own fate is an irrelevance to the final outcome of the civil litigation. It does him an injustice and isover complicating the end result."
5. "Undid revision Richard Skene is an urekiabke source. He’s was not involved in the civil litigation and described Donald Campbell as ‘Sir’ Donald Campbell. That is factually incorrect."
6. "The reference to the Richard Skene article is just silly. It's not a 'legal case study', it's a blogpost, offering a few opinions without any real knowledge of the case. It was written five years before the resolution of the case and four years before the museum even served papers. It is of virtually no relevance and certainly doesn't warrant a paragraph to itself"

(Added since this EW opened)

This is long-running and the IP editor has been warned for months, most recently here: User_talk:80.3.122.252#October_2024 Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Past case at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive483#User:80.3.122.252_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_(Result:_Page_protected) Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Your fixation with my edit is disturbing and disrespectful to say the least. I politely request for you to understand that this is not an edit war but factual evidence to show the irrelevant nature of the recently added paragraph.

I 100% stand by the following as it is truthful and accurate.

“The reference to the Richard Skene article is just silly. It's not a 'legal case study', it's a blogpost, offering a few opinions without any real knowledge of the case. It was written five years before the resolution of the case and four years before the museum even served papers. It is of virtually no relevance and certainly doesn't warrant a paragraph to itself" 80.3.122.252 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Helper201 reported by User:WeaponizingArchitecture (Result:Stale)

Page: Islamic Action Front (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and National Charter Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helper201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [247]
[248]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [249]
2. [250]
3. [251]
4. [252]
5. [253]
6. [254]
7. [255]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [256]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [257]

Comments:
User:Helper201 has undone edits based on their personal definitions. Here was the article's revision before his first edit on this page; There had been consensus by many editors for years to keep Anti-Zionism in the ideology section of the infobox.. When we first tried to resolve the dispute via talk page, I asked them to move it to my talk page to discuss both, but they refused and continued to undo my edits. Alongside this, Helper has accused me of OR for adding back content initially added by other editors. I brought this to the Edit Warring board because this has been going on for 2 weeks now with no resolution. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 05:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Declined as stale since the user hasn't edited the article in almost three days and appears to be looking for other hills to die on. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User:103.151.209.123 reported by User:Czello (Result: Page protected)

Page: Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 103.151.209.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249268233 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
2. 00:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "I predicted 2024 Uk ge with 94% accuracy which was highest then I do not know what is the issue in my content than other polls"
3. 00:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249260371 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
4. 00:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249260005 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
5. 00:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249259248 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
6. 23:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249255714 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
7. 23:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249255184 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
8. 23:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249253715 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
9. 23:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249252740 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
10. 23:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249249222 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
11. 23:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249248886 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
12. 23:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249248453 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
13. 22:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249247558 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
14. 22:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249246677 by Eastwood Park and strabane (talk)"
15. Consecutive edits made from 22:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC) to 22:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
    1. 22:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249237922 by FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk)"
    2. 22:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249237983 by FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk)"
16. [258]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259][260]

Comments: Page protected for two weeks by Elli. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Wi5hakeki reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Blocked indef as NOTHERE)

User being reported: Wi5hakeki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edit warring at two pages...

Page 1: ICC Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [261]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Removing the image File:England_2022_T20_World_Cup_champions.jpg and replacing it with the image File:ICC Men's T20 World Cup Trophy at COA - BugWarp (20) (cropped).jpg which is already in the page's lead section. Also, changing the format of champions table.

1. [262]
2. [263]
3. [264]
4. [265]

Page 2: ICC Men's T20 World Cup Trophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [266]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Removing "ICC Men's" from the title in the infobox.

1. [267]
2. [268]
3. [269]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [270]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [271]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [272]

Comments:
Note: The user never gave any edit summaries. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Factsoverfiction118 reported by User:Deathying (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: John Rustad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factsoverfiction118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Rustad&diff=prev&oldid=1249456139

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1249455955
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1249453557
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1249449506

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factsoverfiction118&oldid=1249458008

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Rustad#Opponent_opinions

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factsoverfiction118&oldid=1249457133

Comments:

Their account was created just to edit this article. I exceeded the 3 revert rule because the claim being edited in was untrue and contrary to BLP policy. They claim the article subject said that there was a conspiracy to "depopulate" the earth; their own source attributes this quote to another candidate, Chris Sankey. I suspect it is a sock puppet of User:PoliticalPoint who failed to get consensus to make a similar change and has also been aggressive with reverting.

Blocked indefinitely If you believe that PP created this account (the timing does line up), take it to SPI; this isn't the place for this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User:SKINNYSODAQUEEN reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Queen Camilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [273]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [274]
2. [275]
3. [276]
4. [277]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [278][279]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [280]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [281]

Comments:

• I was also involved in this discussion. I seriously considered raising concerns about WP:CIR after this edit [282]. --estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

But how do you need consent for FACTS?... If it's as minute as DrKay says it is, why is he so obsessed with it and me? SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Like, he can admit that I actually know more about this than him. Pfft. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Deathying reported by User:PoliticalPoint (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Conservative Party of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deathying (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [283]
2. [284]
3. [285]
4. [286]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [287]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [288]

Comments:

@Deathying: is persistently edit-warring in an attempt to remove any mention of the various conspiracy theories espoused by candidates of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, including its leader, to remove any mention of the various controversies that candidates of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, including its leader, have been involved in, and to remove any mention of far-right politics of the Conservative Party of British Columbia. All of this is despite multiple editors including @Dan Carkner:, @Moxy:, and @Other justin:, agreeing that all of this should be mentioned in the article and despite multiple reliable sources cited in support of the mentioning it all.

@Deathying: also made a false allegation of sockpuppetry that was exposed as a lie at sockpuppet investigations, in order to to justify his persistent edit-warring against multiple editors.

@Deathying: also has a hypothetical scenario infobox at the bottom of his sandbox page that shows the Conservative Party of British Columbia defeating the incumbent British Columbia New Democratic Party and the Green Party of British Columbia, ahead of the upcoming 2024 British Columbia general election, which suggests that this is a scenario that @Deathying: either desires or expects or both and may explain his persistent edit-warring to remove any and all mentions of the conspiracies, controversies, and far-right politics of the Conservative Party of British Columbia.

--PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I made an allegation against you with evidence that administrators didn't deem sufficient enough. It was not a lie, I presented all the evidence I could.

You have refused to participate in good faith in the talk page, instead persisting by not changing your edits at all and forcing them through.

I do not mind mentions of conspiracy theories on these pages. In fact, they existed before I got there. I care that you are misinterpreting the sources to promote your own political beliefs with your edits in particular.

As for my sandbox, I create hypothetical election scenarios for a subreddit. I have created scenarios where other political parties have won. I do not disrupt editing on real pages by doing this. I also have no other way of getting practice with election infoboxes except through my sandbox.

You are doing this in retaliation. We could have come to an agreement on the talk page as many numerous editors have done.

Instead, you resort to reporting anyone who gets in your way. Deathying (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not just me, the editor @Ak-eater06 has accused you of edit warring/promoting an agenda through your edits and you responded by reporting him instead of working out a compromise. Talk:John Rustad Deathying (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Lakshmi Banerjee reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: French language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Lakshmi Banerjee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 03:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 03:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
   2. 03:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC) to 18:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 18:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
   2. 18:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"
4. 17:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* top */correction"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on French language."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User persistently adding flags in Infobox on this and other pages despite MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and it being called to the editor's attention on their Talk page; now edit warring over it. General Ization ^Talk 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Blob02 reported by User:ClaudineChionh (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: The Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Blob02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* The Time War */Put the supernatural back because it doesn't contain "unsourced original research" as previously claimed. The episodes mentioned literally are linked if you click on it to the Wikipedia article."
2. 03:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "/* The Time War */This is all I'm going to add to the supernatural section, if it's not referenced properly, someone else can do it because it is a team effort. I'm not going to waste my time learning how use Wikipedia properly when I'm not going to do another edit after this one. I think that's fair and reasonable. regardless of citation it is atleast 90% done. I cannot see how it is written differently to anything else on this article. The episodes mentioned are real and the events describ..."
3. 17:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* The Time War */Added back the supernatural section. The argument for deleting it doesn't hold up which was that a bi generation is a more substantial change. This isn't correct because the bi-generation isn't the only unique regeneration. 2 other regenerations are unusual for a Time Lord being the War Games and night of the Doctor. The supernatural is more of a shift as there hadn't been at all up to this point other than things being retconned to be like the toymaker. The supernatural is..."

• There were also multiple restores of the material by Blob02 on earlier days too. No 3RR violation, but user has now restored their material six times in the last week. added by Meters (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC) "/* September 2024 */ @Blob02 "I don't like to pile on, but you have co..." [[[w:en:User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum|Factotum]]]"
2. 02:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "discussion notice"
3. 02:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)"Warning: Edit warring on The Doctor" A formal edit warring warning after which the user restored the material again. added by Meters (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who "/* Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor */ @Blob02 "this edit summary is disappointing. "Tea..." [[[w:en:User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum|Factotum]]]"

Comments:

Discussions and warnings are spread across a few article and user talk pages which I have summarised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Disruptive editing on The Doctor and The Fugitive Doctor. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Romanthapa8848 reported by User:Arjayay (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Romanthapa8848 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [289]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [290]
2. [291]
3. [292]
4. [293]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [294]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [295]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [296]

Comments:

- Arjayay (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

User:SamfromAus123 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Book of Enoch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: SamfromAus123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. Added sources for unsourced claims in the article. Used Please see our policies WP:RS and Wikipedia:Citing sources"
2. 23:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. Added sources for unsourced claims already in the article."
3. 22:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. Source is provided in the text with the reference. I even paraphrased it for someone too lazy to check the source."
4. 08:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added references for Ezekiel, and Maccabees. Don't delete this or you risk getting blocked from wiki."
5. 05:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid deletion of mine. Vandalism."
6. 04:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249660717 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Add Maccabees reference about sword"
   2. 04:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added references for the 70 shepherds judged and the 7 men"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Book of Enoch."
2. 23:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Book of Enoch."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Book of Enoch "/* 10 weeks prophecy */ reply"

Comments:

Severely lacks WP:CIR. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

My edits are in accordinace with Wikipedia:Competence is required. You lack Wikipedia:Competence is required. Most of the article is unsourced so I added reputable citations, and you delete it. Read Wikipedia:Banning policy. I suggest a ban for you. SamfromAus123 (talk) 23:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hilarious! tgeorgescu (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Some sort of RGW with CIR going on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2003:D3:FF39:641A:5E11:86EB:A88A:8085 reported by User:StefenTower (Result:Fully protected for 3 daysUnprotected due to reporter deciding to retire from Wikipedia over this)

Page: Louisville, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2003:D3:FF39:641A:5E11:86EB:A88A:8085 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Unreferenced and non-notable"
2. 19:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Unreferenced and non-notable"
3. 19:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Unreferenced and non-notable"
4. Previous to the above, the IP user did a number of edits in a group that constituted a revert

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Louisville, Kentucky."
2. 18:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* October 2024 */ Reply"
3. 19:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Louisville, Kentucky."
4. 19:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Louisville, Kentucky."
5. 19:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Louisville, Kentucky."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ new section"
2. 10:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ revise"
3. 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ minor update"
4. 19:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent removals of content */ revise"

Comments:

User keeps removing longstanding content after my repeated requests to discuss on the article talk page. The user is ignoring my requests. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that I have been amenable to a number of their changes but have requested that the remaining be discussed. Also, I have agreed to placement of cite needed and other tags. They refuse to discuss. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if this is pertinent, but similar edits to the article have been coming from other IPs: 93.216.98.126 and 2003:D3:FF39:64EF:BA24:B799:9067:D53C. All three are coming from Germany. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

From the look of it, the IP is removing unsourced content, and StefenTower keeps restoring the unsourced content. Both are edit warring, but the IP seems to be doing needed cleanup. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"...no? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I have agreed to useful tagging for longstanding content. The key things here are 1) the IP editor is removing a lot of content without seeing the need to discuss when asked by a fellow editor to discuss; and 2) their reasons for removal are unclear to some degree (e.g. "non-notable" doesn't apply and I can't make sense of "undated"), thus my request for discussion. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Their refusal to discuss does not in any way entitle you to edit-war, not in a situation like this where 3RRNO does not apply. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Fully protected by Daniel Case.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Page protected in full for three days. Per above, and only because I'm being nice. Magnolia is absolutely right. If I didn't look at the users I would think the IP that only started editing today was the user with 20 years tenure and Stefen was the IP just daring us to block them. Stefen, I am really disappointed to see that an editor with almost as much time, and a similar six-figure edit count, as me seems to be of the opinion that it is perfectly fine to repeatedly restore unsourced content. Not once in your edit summaries did you acknowledge this; you just ... kept ... putting ... it back.

This is the kind of established-Wikipedian arrogance that gives the whole project a bad name on the sort of websites that otherwise shouldn't have the right to be right. Per ONUS as quoted by Magnolia above, per the "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed at any time" warning that used to be prominent in the edit window, it was your responsibility to at least add sources when you reverted. It can never, by itself, be disruptive editing to remove unsourced material, no matter how brusque the edit summary is (uncivil is different), regardless of whether discussion takes place. If you'd restored the material with sourcing and the IP kept reverting on grounds of notability, then this would be a simple report to respond to.

I do not feel comfortable at this moment giving you your first block in nearly 20 years. But neither am I going to hand you victory in an edit war it is not in the best interests of Wikipedia for you to win for edits that so clearly flout policy.

So, I have fully protected the page for three days. That's enough time for you to get proper sourcing together, stage it on the talk page and, if the IP has not responded to any attempts on your part to discuss, put those sources in the article. Good luck. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I very much hear you and I should have checked myself. I came to the conclusion that after so many edits, this IP user (really, I believe one person using 3 IP addresses) was acting in an odd manner, seeming to come out of nowhere to chop up this article, and giving nebulous reasons beyond "unreferenced". I honestly don't have the wherewithal to find cites for all this in three days, but I think at least one is easily cited, and I'll just leave the rest gone to the winds until I can find cites (finding sources for many things is very time-consuming). What further concerns me is this result may give the IP user a kind of license to continue chopping up the article and refusing to discuss their edits. I don't have the availability to chase all this chopping and find cites, and I don't like putting all my editing time into one article that was stable for such a long time. I believe I have done good stewardship on this article for two decades, but this kind of disruptive editing makes it into an untenable effort, and I may have no choice but to set this article aside until this other user moves on or decides to discuss changes as a responsible Wikipedia editor should. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

After pondering this more, I've decided to retire. When admins don't see a game-playing IP user for what they are, and let them disrupt stable articles for kicks, it's time to throw in the towel. 20 1/2 years, and I is done. Have fun with the dwindling pool of editors who can still hack it. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think that repeatedly removing unsourced material you yourself admit you don't have the inclination to look up sources for constitutes "disruption", even after I gave you three whole days to do it without the pressure of letting your emotions overcome you, then, yeah, you've long since passed the point where you need to call it quits. Wikipedia benefits far more from admins who will enforce policy evenly and fair-handedly no matter how long someone's been editing than it ever would from admins who would accept your view of this situation.

Since you are, by doing this, basically admitting that the IP editor was right, I will be unprotecting the page since you won't be coming back. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User: Imorvit reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: No violation)

Page: 2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Imorvit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [297]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [298]
2. [299]
3. [300]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [301]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [302]

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

Comments:
Brand-new account is engaging in a disruptive edit war on a featured article, removing content that is cited in the body and replacing existing wording with a worse version. While they have not breached 3RR yet, they are actively aware they are edit warring, but have said they will continue to revert back to their edit. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And since you are discussing on the talk page, I don't see any reason to keep this report open.

User:Our Panjāb reported by User:APK (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Sukerchakia Misl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Our Panjāb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "WP:Hijack still not providing the quote!! Ok Cant handle it anymore because on the serious node user taking this matter lightly"
2. 09:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "after the judgement of moderator, reinitiating to the last good version of article before the edit warring inorder to hijack the article 1249868367"
3. 07:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Copy vivo editing WP:CASTE, arrogantly chanting unreliable x infinite and making self presumption, showing your true colour toward WP:CASTE In the end warraich Jat reference is much vibrant than a baseless Khushwant singh claim"
4. 07:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Persistent WP:Vandalism Personal attack I am literally obscured the all source and this person literally vanishing anything just by comment "unreliable", does it make anything special"
5. 21:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Ya you are absolutely right I am the one who adding solidarity material, please avoid this paper if possible by so far before your intervention its much better indeed 1249793103 by Jassu712 (talk)"
6. 21:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Recklessly False acquisition you are doing on purpose but the think almost every formalised abstract is powered by wayback engine, without any blogpost or third party extension please go ahead and get some knowledge about archive functionality as you said and bulk of the source added Maplesyrupsushi which you trying to gaslight for some kind of personal COI 1249789029 by Jassu712 (talk)"
7. 20:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Newcomer!! Kindly elaborate what do you mean by unreliable without repetition don't matter in your own hands dude 1249787127 by Jassu712 (talk)"
8. 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added tag using Helper 3.5.0 Stabilising to last regime for better resemblance 1249783819 by moderator (talk)"
9. 11:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Its my Last resort don't force me to invigilate with my moderate account, 1249700787 by Jassu712 (talk)"
10. 10:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Resettling the best stable version prior to gaslighting attempt to exaggerate historian Khushwant singh as an whole using Wiki (helper3.5.0)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sukerchakia Misl."
2. 10:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sukerchakia Misl."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Our Panjāb "Warning: Edit warring on Sukerchakia Misl."

Comments:

Large number of reverts in the past 24 hours. Both parties were given a general warning. After continued edit warring, I left a final warning for each. Our Panjāb has continued. Jassu712 has said on their user talk page they won't continue for now. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

An IP has appeared removing some of the content the two users are fighting over. Take that as you will. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Injusticewtf reported by User:Rsjaffe (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Incidents of necrophilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Injusticewtf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:29, 7 October 2024‎ Injusticewtf [?] talk contribs‎ 32,245 bytes +574‎ Undid revision. It wasn't an edit just a pop culture fan bias. Their undo rationale was a rant and a bias. 1249929572 by YoureWrong46 (talk)
2. 13:20, 6 October 2024‎ Injusticewtf [?] talk contribs‎ 32,245 bytes +574‎ Restored back. The undo rationale does not match the definition at the top of the page, which is: Necrophilia is a pathological fascination with dead bodies, which often takes the form of a desire to engage with them in sexual activities, such as intercourse. ... This definition is defined by the desire not the actualUndid revision 1249783442 by Justlettersandnumbers (talk (A))
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 20:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1249718659 by 114.122.117.212 (talk) The subject matter is a fantasy of necrophila. This is in the Wikipedia definition. Perhaps rJaffe missed the "F**k her corpse" in the quote."
   2. 20:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Added an actor with his quote of fantasies of necrophilia as described in the definition for necrophilia."
   3. 20:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision as original entry was reverted but did not appear when I checked 1249780600 by Injusticewtf (talk)"
4. 02:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "I re-added Johnny Depp with a citation."
5. Consecutive edits made from 02:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC) to 02:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
   1. 02:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "I added Johnny Depp and his infamous text about necrophilia."
   2. 02:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "proofread and removed duplication of former entry"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Incidents of necrophilia."
2. 15:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Incidents of necrophilia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also Special:Diff/1249779244/1249825532 and user's previous comment on User talk:Rsjaffe. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sovmeeya reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sovmeeya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250091882 by Remsense (talk)"
2. 12:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1250079934 by NebY (talk)"
3. 10:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC) "false and invalid closure reason. Clearly unjustified. Leave open for a week at least"
4. 10:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC) "Unjustifiably been closed by User:Levivich less than 24 hours after start, saying that "No chance that consensus will form to repeal WP:V § Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." But it's not an attempt to "repeal WP:V § Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion."!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability‎‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week For the edit warring and other disruptive conduct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Report

Page: 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence

User being reported:@Za-ari-masen

Comments:@Za-ari-masen reverting many times disinformation section. In the talk page there are given enough reason why disinformation section is changed. But he reverting everytime when someone change disinformation section. He fixed in his ideology and changes disinformation section without talking with other editors. AmitKumarDatta180 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User:CoptEgypt136 reported by User:Display name 99 (Result: No violation)

Page: Carlo Maria Viganò (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CoptEgypt136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:
CoptEgypt136 changed the lead photograph in the article Carlo Maria Viganò without discussion on the talk page or using an edit summary. I reverted and posted a message on their user page reminding them to use edit summaries, especially when altering or removing someone else's content. They deleted my talk page message without comment and restored their preferred image, again without an edit summary. I reverted once more and posted a formal warning on their talk page. They undid my revert and again restored their preferred image. CoptEgyp136 has a light editing history, but that history contains several warnings for violations of Wikipedia policy. They have removed most of these warnings from their talk page, but they're there if anyone checks the history. A block is urgently necessary in my view. Display name 99 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Bbb23, seriously? This user reverted content twice with no edit summary. They haven't yet broken 3RR, but their action was still inappropriate and they have given no indication that they will stop. Display name 99 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Warned. I agree with Bbb23. They were only warned about edit warring after the reverts linked above. I gave an additional warning and mentioned edit summaries specifically.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Beats doing nothing. Display name 99 (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User:212.79.110.201 reported by User:FromCzech (Result: Blocked for a week)

Page: Beer in the Czech Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.79.110.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 8 August
2. 9 August
3. 9 August
4. 9 August
5. [303] (now with inappropriate behaviour in Edit summary. Also in the further Edit summary he openly says that he is not interested in the discussion.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [304]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [305]

Blocked – for a period of one week Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Left CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Fillionaire reported by User:KyleJoan (Result: Blocked from article for a month under CTOPS)

Page: Tony Dokoupil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fillionaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [306]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [307]
2. [308]
3. [309]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [310]

Comments:
User has one more revert containing copyright violations. They continued to add undue material about the subject and violating MOS:OVERSECTION and WP:RECENTISM as well. They were notified about contentious topics and continued to revert, so I'm not sure whether this report is better filed in arbitration enforcement. Apologies if that's the case. KyleJoan^talk 03:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

User just reverted my edits three times in 22 minutes. Fillionaire (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

User (KyleJoan) has spent the last week deleting every attempt to provide neutral information on the Tony Dokoupil controversy. Fillionaire (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, front-page stories from the WSJ, WP, and NYT are not "undue material." Fillionaire (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No violation of MOS:OVERSECTION as the content comprised two well-sourced paragraphs. User (KyleJoan)'s argument is that the "Controversy" section is not longer than the subject's "Career" section which is irrelevant. User (KyleJoan) has also arbitrarily suggested that I should simultaneously edit the article for CBS News which is also irrelevant. Fillionaire (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month from the article under CTOPS, which editor was advised of. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:243:1A00:4510:96E:83E1:3331:3B57 reported by User:Vipz (Result: /64 blocked for a week)

Page: Josip Broz Tito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:243:1A00:4510:96E:83E1:3331:3B57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1250009047

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1250029087
2. Special:Diff/1250126066
3. Special:Diff/1250129964
4. Special:Diff/1250168415
5. Special:Diff/1250357928
6. Special:Diff/1250361291

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1250245087

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1250365003

Comments:
Blocked – for a period of one week The /64. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

User:TarnishedPath reported by User:XZealous (Result: No violation)

Page: International Churches of Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [311]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [312]
2. [313]
3. [314]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [315][316]

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

Comments:
There was an edit added and reverted twice by TarnishedPath. I found this to be an unnecessary revert as there was no consensus for the revert on the talk page. I undid the reversions and made a comment on the talk page. After the third revert, I am taking it here. I am not interested in bringing more drama to an already controversial page, but I also see no need for edit warring. I have not made a post here before (and I hope to never have to again), so I may not have formatted this all correctly. Further input would be appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XZealous (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not realize the 3R rule needed 4 reverts. However, I am grateful that this has brought attention to the edit warring on the ICOC page. XZealous (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 1 hour ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@XZealous, aside from this not being a WP:3RR violation, you're required to leave a warning on editor's talk prior to creating any reports here to give them a chance to remedy their WP:3RR violation (which this wasn't) by self-reverting. TarnishedPath^talk 04:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for noting this, I would have also appreciated a notification for the NPOV board you opened up regarding myself and another editor. XZealous (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry notified you. In any case a notification isn't required for topics opened on NPOVN. However in future I'll endeavour to do so, if the situation arises. TarnishedPath^talk 07:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I saw this "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so." on the top of the NPOV Notice Board page and assumed it meant I needed to be notified. XZealous (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Specific editors weren't mentioned. In any case I'll endeavour to do so in future. TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)