Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive489

User:Epok in town reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Kaylia Nemour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Epok in town (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 01:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC) to 23:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 01:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 01:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) to 01:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 01:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 01:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kaylia Nemour."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Incorrect use of minor edits check box on Kaylia Nemour."
2. 02:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Persistent unjustified changes */ new section"
3. 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Persistent unjustified changes */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring across multiple articles (to impose their POV) while refusing to seek consensus for their changes, or even explain why they're doing them. They removed the 3R warning and my comment from their talk page and reverted all the edits that have been challenged (see example, there are way too many to cite here). M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to fix something that was not etiquette in the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Context. Epok in town (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Either you don't understand the rules or you're just pretending not to (blanking your talk page like you did speaks for itself). Either way, there is no excuse (none whatsoever) for you to impose your POV through an edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I was not even thinking about reverting the edits as a way to impose my point of view. Epok in town (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If you thought of it like that, I understand. But I'm just telling you I didn't see it that way. Epok in town (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm only interested in what you did and I have provided the diffs to prove it. M.Bitton (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

User:WeAreFamily1996 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: WeAreFamily1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 22:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 23:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 23:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255618000 by Soetermans (talk)"
5. 20:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255606777 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"
6. 19:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1255516654 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New-ish user who claims to work on the show and has repeatedly added a composer to the infobox field. Despite warnings and a talk page discussion, they continue all the same. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit: "new-ish" user, they apparently had to change their username in the past. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Iaof2017 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: 2021 Albanian parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iaof2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor recently popped up on my watchlist when they carried out significant expansions of two articles. However, the expansions contained multiple issues that I attempted to fix. My attempts to do this were repeatedly blindly reverted, with Iaof2017 reinserting clearly incorrect information into 2021 article several times. They have now violated 3RR on the article despite being asked on numerous occasions to stop reverting.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:01, 6 November 2024
2. 18:38, 6 November 2024
3. 18:45, 6 November 2024
4. 06:39, 7 November 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been repeatedly asked to follow WP:BRD and not blindly revert edits,[1][2][3][4][5] but has ignored most messages and deleted them from his talk page without responding.[6][7]

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

Comments:

I have invested significant time and effort into improving the article, with the intention of nominating it for Good Article (GA) status, as I also did with the 1991 Albanian parliamentary election article. Instead of making unnecessary and disruptive edits, such as replacing the detailed infbox, which is more appropriate, and adding the "Notes" section twice, which was both out of place and redundant, I encourage you to recognize the positive contributions I have made. Iaof2017 (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Wuerzele reported by User:NatGertler (Result: No violation)

Page: Public domain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wuerzele (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. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Public_domain#Public_domain_by_medium

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:
Non-3RR edit warring. Editor is repeatedly placing off-topic material in the article, and their only post to the talk page since disagreements began addresses none of the concerns]. This is not someone who is participating in discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nat Gertler has reverted sourced content four times, not productively contributing and is editwarring. He is displaying ownership issues.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Diffs please? Given that I've only edited that article three times in the last three months and given that one was a revert that had no source, it's a pretty hard statement to push. And the two "sourced" additions were not relevant to the page, as I appropriately brought up on the Talk page. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:34, 3 November 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 it seems like people have rediscovered the value of talk pages here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said, this was an edit-warring report, not 3RR. And the individual still refuses to discuss the edits; their only entry onto the page was to a request that I not address his added material, which is not a discussion aimed at settling matters. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes we consider these reports as edit warring outside the context of 3RR, usually if the reporter has framed it that way and explained why. But in this case you offered only three diffs that did not meet the criteria for 3RR. How else did you expect it to be evaluated?

Anyway, things seem to have calmed down after Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page post. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

well, @Daniel Case, Nat Gertler got what he wanted: He reverted a fourth time. He does not add text, but reverts. Wuerzele (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary summed it up as "how was I to know you wanted this to be anything other than a 3RR report?", and I think that what I'd posted here, starting with "Non-3RR edit warring", seems clear. This was a user who was repeatedly reinserting the same material and avoiding discussion. Now you note that he has entered discussion, but not to answer the concerns raised by myself and now an other editor, that the material is not relevant to the topic of the article. His posts instead obsess on whether I am adding text to the article, which is irrelevant to the question at hand and not truly discussion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you thought of getting a third opinion or some other method of extended dispute resolution, if you feel this impasse exists?

And I have reviewed many reports where people say something like "While this user hasn't violated 3RR, they ..." That is the kind of language that is helpful. Simply saying "non-3RR edit warring" in the boilerplate is likely to get missed. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

We have a third person already in the discussion, now. While Wuerzele's discussion is not in a productive form, has not reinserted the material since the entrance of this third person. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Nat Gertler, you got your reverting will and this entire time you are entirely unproductive on the page. Wuerzele (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Santiegomartin555 reported by User:JeffUK (Result: Blocked one week)

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

User being reported: Santiegomartin555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 11:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Added contents"
3. 10:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Added contect"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ulm."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User not engaging on talk page. Probably just not hearing us! JeffUK 12:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

They've just appeared on their talk page, as a new user I've tried to explain why what they're doing is wrong, Technically breached 3RR already but if they don't continue then this can probably be resolved without sanctions. JeffUK 12:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Ignore that! Just realised they edited in the random person yet again. I can't revert this time myself, it's not quite falling under the BLP exemption. JeffUK 12:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Masataka Ohta reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "undo changes ignoring the most recent (in 2023 before my recent change) discussion on talk"
2. 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1256142515. Though I'm not sure what "secure agreement " means, my revision is basedby MrOllie (talk)"
3. 12:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision claiming (by talk) as if a "binary digit" is a digit and, thus, must be a decimal digit by (talk)"
4. 11:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "As wikipedia page on Tukey and bit (He attributed its origin to John W. Tukey, who had written a Bell Labs memo on 9 January 1947 in which he contracted "binary information digit" to simply "bit") do confirms a fact"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bit."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Revisions to lead */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Jmjfat reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

Comments:

User seems to WP:OWN the page with a past history that has led to WP:COI warnings. Is insisting that court evidence is required to include a discussion of a labour dispute reported in Pravda Ukraine. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not insisting court evidence needs to be provided, I am disputing the reliably of sources that can all be traced back to the same anonymous testimony of a former employee. I demand that the information be either referenced by another independant source, or not mentionned in the article. Jmjfat (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You are edit warring and acting like you own the page - you should self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We are here to present factual information, not unsubstantiated rumours. Jmjfat (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

User: HistoryofIran reported by User:176.88.165.232 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page:  
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

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

Comments:

- if you look at his edit, he does not even specify the reason he is reverting but just threatens to report me even though my edit came with sources. On his talk page, I invited him to raise his objections but he again reverted my invitation, threatening to report me again --176.88.165.232 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 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) 18:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

User:176.88.165.232 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Khwarazmian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 176.88.165.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

Comments:

IP is likely a sock per my comments here [30] [31]. Edit warring is just one of the many troubles they're currently causing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

+1, I was seriously considering writing an ANI report because of consistent WP:IDHT and tendentious editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Here is my response: Everytime, I invited these two to raise their objections on the talk page. My edit came with sources, official website of a government and an academic paper in English. These two are not raising objections but just reverting. I shall report them but I have no time right now to edit codes as I am at work now. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

+ EXTRA: Here are the user-talk page invitations of mine where I invited the two to explain their objection (which they did not):

HistoryofIran: 1

AirshipJungleman29:2 176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

User:2001:e68:5415:ce:dd22:5629:17eb:853b reported by User:Matthewrb (Result: Page protected)

Page: The Twisted Timeline of Sammy & Raj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:e68:5415:ce:dd22:5629:17eb:853b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (And other related IPs)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1254876342
2. Special:Diff/1255086880
3. Special:Diff/1255343796
4. Special:Diff/1255875194
5. Special:Diff/1255890964
6. Special:Diff/1256062542
7. Special:Diff/1256322558
8. Special:Diff/1256456268
9. Special:Diff/1256481709
10. Special:Diff/1256723577
11. Special:Diff/1256791208

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A - SLOWEW

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, dispute resolution was only done via edit summaries.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:
There appears to be a SLOWEW happening in this article, since the 1st of November. Multiple users, including @Basil2001: and @Gilo1969: have reverted but the IPs are making 2 changes or less per day. While this does not qualify as a 3rr in the traditional sense, I am bringing it here for a wider look as this is long-running and will probably continue without semi-protection . ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 17:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for three months. This is really a classic case of needing that; in the future you should take cases like this to RFPP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniel. I wasn't sure, so I went with the ANEW as the safe option... ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 21:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

User:EliasAntonakos reported by User:Makeandtoss (Result: Stale)

Page: November 2024 Amsterdam attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EliasAntonakos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert: involved changing infobox from military conflict to civilian attack + removing a paragraph.
2. Second revert: changing infobox from military conflict to civilian attack again [34] (a revert of [35]).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36] Five days have passed since the warning, and three days since I had linked and explained to them the definition of a revert as per WP's guidelines.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments: <br / Hi, i have no idea why this user is accusing me of edit warring. As far as i understand and as someone wrote on my talk page, i did nothing wrong. More than that, it seems the one accusing me is not 100% sure about edit warring rules, more like bending it so he can be right. In the first edits I was merging an article, I did a revert only in the last edit. EliasAntonakos (talk) 13:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Stale. Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Can you please elaborate what is meant by stale? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. This explanation is at the top of this page. EliasAntonakos's edits were on November 8, four days ago. Even if they were more recent, I would find no violation as, according to you, EliasAntonakos reverted only twice. Please be more careful about making reports here in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Ah my bad, I forgot to mention that this article is under ARBPIA, so two reverts count as one 1RR violation. The delay in reporting came to give them time to self-revert, answer on their talk page, and comply with 1RR. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation, but the violation is still too old. In future, if you wish to give an editor an opportunity to self-revert, fine, but don't wait 2 days from when you ask them. Even on November 10, this would have been too old. It's safer to ask them to self-revert and file a report here at the same time.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: Sure but the user was not editing between 8 and 10 November so they had no chance to self-revert and the report would have also been considered inappropriate. And there was a discussion on their talk page to explain to them what is meant with a revert. All in all, I think an explanation to them what constitutes a revert is handy so that they maintain compliance with 1RR in the future. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for you reply, the user who filed the complaint is only presenting half the picture, as someone on my talk page explained to me and him, that i DID NOT do anything wrong in my editting. This is only Makeandtoss interpretation of the rule, that lead him to a wrong conclusion. So please if you could help me out here, as i realy do not understand why he is so unkind to me. EliasAntonakos (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @EliasAntonakos: Your first edit would probably not be counted as a revert unless someone could demonstrate that the infobox had been changed recently to "civilian attack" and therefore you would have been reverting that editor. Your second set of edits (consecutive edits count as one single edit for revert counting) was an obvious revert as you reverted back to the civilian attack template. Therefore, you reverted only once back on November 8.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: They also removed a paragraph, as I outlined above, just after having changed the infobox, so there are two reverts on 8 November. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Makeandtoss: My apologies, I screwed up in my analysis. I reversed time-wise the 3-consecutive-edit and the single edit. So, please tell me what part(s) of the article that Elias changed reverted some other editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you reversed anything, you have your analysis right. What I do see here is that the filer who has themselves recently been accused of edit warring [38] in a case now escalated to arbcom, seems not to understand what edit warring actually means. The first edits by the editor were not reverts but the merge of two separate articles on the same event in Amsterdam (one of them written by myself). Only the last edit mentioned was a revert. There's no real edit warring in that chain of events to speak of. This complaint reads more like something else, that I have already complained about just a few days ago, after falsely accused by the filer for being a sockpuppet, here [39]. ABHammad (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Oh please be nice, both of you and everyone should probably stop accusing everyone of everything. Makeandtoss has accused me of RR in the past, but we have been able to collaboratively discuss things over time. He is rather straightforward and to the point. Generally I don’t like this RR thing and I don’t completely understand it either. Maybe take a look at the content and if it is in line w/ Wikipedia policies, is it good for the article, etc. rather than focusing on this RR thing. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I recommend Makeandtoss retract this RR filing and discuss content on article talk page. Usually he has good points about article organization. I have not got the time right now to check which article this is about, but we should try to diplomatically discuss changes on the article talk page. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23: So first revert was the removal of paragraph (revert of [40]) and second revert was changing infobox (revert of [41]). Now, again, goal is for the editor to understand what a revert is and acknowledge they have violated 1RR, despite the third party claims to otherwise, so that we avoid this hassle in the future, and edit collaboratively and happily. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Raskolnikov.Rev reported by User:PhotogenicScientist (Result: Page protected)

Page: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Raskolnikov.Rev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:07, 25 October 2024
2. 00:32, 29 October 2024
3. 16:21, 30 October 2024
4. 00:12, 7 November 2024
5. 22:37, 12 November 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Raskolnikov.Rev#WP:WIKILAWYERING

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Tertiary_coverage

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43]

Comments:

Slow-moving edit war continues to happen at this page, where Raskolnikov.Rev continues to include material that did not achieve consensus in the Talk page discussion. The biggest reason this proposal failed to achieve consensus: It goes against our guideline on WP:CITATIONS, particularly the section on WP:INTEXT attribution of references. @XDanielx: and I have been trying (to little avail) to make this point on the talk page for the better part of the past 2 weeks. I also tried to make this same point earlier, at Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_46#'October_17'_section a thread in which Raskolnikov.Rev's behavior was so poor that they were rebuked, and they promised to behave better.

After trying to garner more community input on the application of this guideline, but getting little input, I'm not sure where else to turn but here. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been continuous efforts by @PhotogenicScientist to remove long-standing content that does not violate any rule or consensus and in fact has the support of more editors for inclusion than those who oppose it (although no consensus has been established for it as of yet). Here are the facts of the case:

Failing to gain consensus for the removal of this content on another page, @PhotogenicScientist decided to continuously remove the content while citing non-existent rules to justify it despite other editors pointing this out. Here are the diffs of that:

1. 22:34, 12 November 2024
2. 00:54, 7 November 2024
3. 23:04, 5 November 2024 (this edit summary justifies the removal by saying it was "in contravention of WP:INTEXT". It was reverted by @Lf8u2 who pointed out in Talk that no such rule exists.)

The attempt to remove this content that has been up for over a year began on the 25th of October. Here are the diffs for that:

1. 02:06, 25 October 2024 (note that this edit summary is plainly false and is not even in dispute, as all the cited sources do cite FA. Yet @PhotogenicScientist included my revert of this as part of an edit-war against some non-existent consensus.)
2. 05:17, 25 October 2024 (this was reverted by @Nableezy)
3. 00:23, 29 October 2024 (this edit summary merely says "per talk" to justify its removal, but there is no such consensus and the discussion was ongoing, so I reverted it)
4. 16:10, 30 October 2024 (this edit summary once again refers to talk, but again no such consensus for removal was obtained there, so I reverted it accordingly.)
5. 00:05, 7 November 2024 (once again the removal is justified with a "per talk" repetition of their POV, ignoring that other editors opposed this and no such consensus was obtained. I reverted it.)

As you can see, myself and other editors reverted this as there is no consensus for its removal and there was and continues to be an ongoing Talk discussion concerning it, where the majority of editors have provided detailed arguments for why it should not be removed. So there is no consensus for its removal, and there are no rules or guidelines consensus necessitating it either.

Other editors also noted that @PhotogenicScientist's very own refusal to acknowledge FA being RS justifies its inclusion as can be seen in the relevant Talk page. These other editors alongside myself are: @Selfstudier @Lf8u2 @Smallangryplanet @CoolAndUniqueUsername.

Again as noted by @Lf8u2 on the Talk page in question, @PhotogenicScientist misrepresented WP:CITATIONS to justify what possibly amounts to edit-warring. There is in fact no required rule that necessitates its removal, and in fact it notes that in-line references can be used.

This clearly establishes that @PhotogenicScientist does not have consensus to remove this content, and is misrepresenting rules and guidelines to justify its continuous removal.

@PhotogenicScientist also created an RfC on the matter without notifying other editors involved in the discussion except for the one that agrees with them, even though that is required, and instead presenting only their own POV version of the discussion. I only was made aware of that now when it was linked here. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just forum shopping by filer, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Mentioning_citation_sources_in_article_prose_at_Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

After trying to garner more community input on the application of this guideline, but getting little input, I'm not sure where else to turn but here. I was quite upfront that I'm looking for more input than this issue has gotten. Your contributions to that NPOVN thread have not materially addressed the issue at hand - you preferred to ask about an ongoing RFC unrelated to the CITATION issue in prose. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected one week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I guess that stops the edit war temporarily... but could the behavior of warring against consensus be addressed? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  No such consensus exists. As has been pointed out to you by @Lf8u2, you are blatantly misrepresenting WP:CITATIONS to justify your continuous removal of long-standing content that is being actively discussed in Talk and for which you have no consensus. I and other editors have told you and others who kept removing this to seek actual consensus for it in the ongoing Talk, yet you continued to persist even after your own RfC yielded yet another editor who agreed with its retention, namely @Selfstudier. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Earl of Arundel reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Talk:2024 United States presidential election (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Earl of Arundel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Super Goku V (talk): Hatting an ongoing discussion is an act of censorship and will not be tolerated"
2. 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by David O. Johnson (talk): Censorship must not be tolerated"
3. 00:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257046489 by David O. Johnson (talk) Reverting attempts to censor discussion on a talk page"
4. 23:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257041182 by Esolo5002 (talk) Please seek consensus on the talk page before closing active discussions"
5. 22:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by David O. Johnson (talk): Please seek consensus on the talk page before closing active discussions"
6. 21:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257027093 by David O. Johnson (talk) Hatting without consensus is tantamount to censorship of a talk-page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:2024 United States presidential election."
2. 15:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "/* November 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Earl of Arundel "/* November 2024 */ Censorship must not be tolerated"

Comments:

User violated 3RR yesterday, but had not received the talk page warning, so I warned them rather than report. They responded by indicating that they will not stop. Editor is clearly viewing WP:ARBAP2 as a WP:BATTLEGROUND – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I was reverting attempts to suppress discussion on a talk page. The purpose of the 3RR is to prevent disruptive edits of articles (which I have respected). Moreover, your reversion [[44]] of my NPOV revisions is just another example the kind of partisan-biased wording that is currently rampant across the project. Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, 3RR applies to talk pages too. See WP:3RR. — Czello ^(music) 16:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup. And I detailed what was wrong with the main page edit with wikipolicy. An WP:IDHT response calling it "partisan" is not promising for future collaboration. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See exemption #4. Suppression of discussion is vandalism: "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't recognise the attempts to hat that discussion as suppression of discussion or vandalism. The discussion had descended into debates about whether Haitians eating people's pets, with spurious videos being posted as proof. This isn't constructive to the project. — Czello ^(music) 16:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Hariwulf reported by User:Ermenrich (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [51]

Comments:

New user (started as an IP) adding unsourced material to the article and then simply re-adding it after given links to WP:RS and edit warning templates.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User Ermenrich acted as a totalitarian authority of Wikipedia with the ability to delete edits (without stating clearly the reason for doing so) rather than even considering to build around them. I also edited the page only twice with my account (meaning after having read and agreed on the Terms).

In the 90 minutes of life of my account, I have been warned and reported, while Ermenrich refused to find, together with me, an amicable resolution to the issue (he finds my edit "ludicrous", albeit we are referring to simple phonetics).

I may be new and have quoted Wikipedia on the Talk page instead of the source of the article, however this was on the Talk page itself and to foster discussion.

Also, while not related to this subject, I would like to state my indignation towards the unfriendliness and attitude towards new users here on Wikipedia. I did come across a number of rants addressed at Editors acting in "one-sided", "entitled" and "owning" ways, and apparently I should have better heeded the warning.

No one enjoys facing this amount hostility and issues moments after joining a community with the hope to help it. It is the same as trying to scare away newcomers.

With this in consideration, I look forward to what the Administrators will have to say on the matter. Hariwulf (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

...or, instead of ranting about how you've been wronged by my telling you you can't add unsourced material to Wikipedia, you could simply self-revert your addition of unsourced nonsense to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Just FYI, Hariwulf appears to be engaged in block evasion: an IP has continued to reinstate his edits: [52], [53].--Ermenrich (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User:TypicallyRyan reported by User:Northern Moonlight (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: The Voice (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TypicallyRyan (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voice_(franchise)&oldid=1257205985
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voice_(franchise)&oldid=1257206101
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voice_(franchise)&oldid=1257206226
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voice_(franchise)&oldid=1257254774
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Voice_(franchise)&oldid=1257255773

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TypicallyRyan&oldid=1257256104

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TypicallyRyan&oldid=1257207461

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

Comments:

• Bonus: Falsely accusing me of being a bot. Northern Moonlight 01:00, 14 November 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, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:AirshipJungleman29 reported by User:176.88.165.232 (Result: declined)

Page: Khwarezmian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AirshipJungleman29 (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. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

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

Comments:
Does not raise any objection on talk page. My contribution came with 3 different sources, 2 of which corraborates the first one. 1 from official government website and 1 from academic paper (which was available online and in English, link attached to the citation). but Airshipjungleman29 did not raise any objection even though I invited him both on talk page and in edit-summary panel. Just kept edit warring without raising any objection 176.88.165.232 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The most important part is that, I assert, AirshipJungleman29's behaviour is political: In the current version of the article, the section "Culture, the section he was sabotaging is unsourcedly attributed to Persians: when a content is attributed to Persians without a source, AirshipJungleman29 and HistoryofIran do not dispute it but when triple sourced content attributes the culture into Turkmens, HistoryofIran and AirshipJungleman29 immediately starts edit war. 176.88.165.232 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Declined for oh so many reasons:
  • The page is already protected.
  • You're the only one who has actually broken 3RR on this page. (Were it not for the protection this would be WP:BOOMERANG.)
  • Your report is malformed, and the "page" link goes to a completely different page from your diffs.
  • Your link to the attempt to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page goes to the other editor's user talk page; I don't see you trying to discuss this on the article's talk page at all.
• --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  • The report Has nothing to do with the protection.
  • The report has nothing to do with 3RR
  • Both the page link and 3 diff links go to the same pageç
  • 1. they did not try to discuss their complainment on the article's talk page but their report was not declined. then, how is my report declined? :D Lol. Just state you are siding with them so that you can cover each other. I won't leave it here.

  176.88.165.232 (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  The page link does go somewhere else -- to a page that redirects to the article in question. Thus, the "history" link does not show the edit warring.

  I cannot speak as to why another report evaluated by a different administrator was accepted or declined. You would have to ask them. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Wait, why did you ignore that he does not raise any objection? He just reverts without arguing anything. The page being protected has nothing to do with their reverts being completely unexplained or my 3RR has nothing to do with their arbitrary reverts. These are just red-herring to cover their faults so that fellows are not penalized 176.88.165.232 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oh and I didn't even notice that there was already an actioned ANEW report involving you. This report therefore also seems retaliatory. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  They can report without discussing on talk page but I can not report without discussing on talk page? Obviously, corrupted admin sides with his/her fellows. Unsourced content gets free pass when it is about Persians but triple sourced content rejected when it is about Turkmens. You are racists --176.88.165.232 (talk) 176.88.165.232 (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please see WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. If you are trying to add content and that addition gets reverted, you are expected to open discussion on the article's talk page.

  And I'd suggest striking your personal attack. Aside from being inappropriate, I wasn't even aware of the other ANEW report when I evaluated this one. My conclusion was reached completely independently, based solely on your behavior. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Nor WP:ONUS neither WP:BRD has such policy. Otherwise, you could revert any edit and then that editor would have been expected to open discussion. Do you even see how absurd your excuse is? 176.88.165.232 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  That's... literally what they both say. Yes, that is exactly what is expected to happen. At this point I'm not going to reply any further as this clearly is a case of I didn't hear that. Note that there are about 850 administrators, many of whom frequent this page. If they disagree with my decision here they are welcome to chime in. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I have put a CTOPS notice on the talk page since the article comes under the scope of ARBIPA. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:2601:243:1A00:4510:D4:B6C6:C0D0:4EC7 reported by User:Vipz (Result: /64 blocked three months)

Page: Josip Broz Tito (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:243:1A00:4510:D4:B6C6:C0D0:4EC7 (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: On article Josip Broz Tito:

1. Diffs listed in the first report
2. Diffs listed in the second report
3. Special:Diff/1257086742

On article Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia:

1. Special:Diff/1257087517 from Special:Diff/1253652929

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1257243658

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1254126495.

Comments:
See comments made in the previous report. Classic block evasion. Apart from the aforementioned two articles, Prime Minister of Yugoslavia has also become a target of this single-purpose IP hopper. –Vipz (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of three months 2601:243:1A00:4510:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:TypicallyRyan reported by User:Northern Moonlight (Result: No violation)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257255159 by Northern Moonlight (talk) Dude, I read your comment. You dont have a right to make any major changes like yours to an article YOU DONT OWN. Stop messing with it and leave it alone."
2. 00:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257233603 by Northern Moonlight (talk) Listen man, don't mess with the article formatting. I didn't make this article in the first place. It was completely fine the way it was, and if you don't like it then don't bother lookin back on this page. But just please leave it."
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC) to 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 20:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Leave them the way they were, no use in getting rid of the colors. It helps people figure out when each season begins or ends."
   2. 20:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257201501 by Northern Moonlight (talk) Same with this one don't get rid of the hosts or coaches."
   3. 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257201053 by Northern Moonlight (talk) Dont' get rid of the winners either, please leave them alone."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• Bonus: Falsely accusing me of being a bot. Northern Moonlight 01:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the comment. I shouldn't have said that. I was only trying to defend the article. But it's no excuse. TypicallyRyan (talk) 01:19, 14 November 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. That series of three edits at the bottom is the original edit, not a revert. I would also note that the diff of "effort to resolve differences on the article talk page" is actually a diff of an edit to the reported user's talk page. That won't fly. Attempting to resolve differences on the article talk page (which has not been used for most of the year, much less recently) is to be greatly preferred as this is more conducive to other, previously uninvolved users getting into the discussion and reaching a consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Hanada12 reported by User:Seawolf35 HGAV (Result: Declined)

Page: 1932 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hanada12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Name one candidate since 1932 that called their opponent a "fat capon" or a "chameleon in plaid.""
2. 02:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Information and details about the campaign and contention between the candidates."
3. 02:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257268163 by Jon698 (talk)"
4. 02:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "I think they are worthy of being in the article."
5. 01:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "It provides more information about the campaign, so it does contribute to the article. Also, it was in an earlier version of the article."
6. 22:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Campaign */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 1932 United States presidential election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned and then immediately reverted again. -- Seawolf35 (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Has the other party been warned as well? I did not see any indication of this. Thank you. Hanada12 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I recognize I should have used the talk page, but the other party did the same thing I did and he was not warned, so I believe this demonstrates favoritism towards one side. Hanada12 (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I just warned him. MessageApp (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It would have been nice if it was done at the same time, to avoid showing favoritism to one side or the other. But I appreciate that you have now notified both sides. Thank you. Hanada12 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Also notifying User:Jon698 as well, the other editor involved in this. -- Seawolf35 (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It would have been nice if it was done at the same time, to avoid showing favoritism to one side or the other. But I appreciate that you have now notified both sides. Thank you. Hanada12 (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Declined Hanada just created their account today (well, "today" by North American time) and as such could not reasonably be expected to have been aware of 3RR. They have also been very collegial here. But now that you know that you can't just revert away, Hanada, please behave accordingly. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your consideration. Yes, I was not aware of the rules and I was also shocked at the way the other member was coming at me. But I will be more careful next time, thank you again. Hanada12 (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:5.107.87.236 reported by User:Belbury (Result: Semi-protected one week)

Page: Malabar Muslims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 5.107.87.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "sanghi vandalism by IP 207.96.13.12. Undid revision 1257392475 by 207.96.13.12 (talk)"
2. 17:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "indian sanghi vandalism. Undid revision 1257392239 by 207.96.13.12 (talk)"
3. 17:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "indian sanghi vandalismUndid revision 1257391973 by 207.96.13.12 (talk)"
4. 17:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "vandalism. Undid revision 1257389432 by 207.96.13.12 (talk)"
5. 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257379424 by 207.96.13.12 (talk)"
6. 16:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257379058 by 207.96.13.12 (talk)"
7. 16:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257377410 by ItTollsForThee (talk)"
8. Consecutive edits made from 16:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC) to 16:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 16:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC) ""
9. Consecutive edits made from 15:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC) to 16:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 15:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Malabar Muslims."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Malabar Muslims "/* Mappila are descendants of lower caste hindus */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring with User:207.96.13.12 (who has also gone beyond 3RR after a warning). 207.96.13.12 opened a talk page thread but the other IP has not responded. Belbury (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• The article has been semi-protected for one week by another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:108.44.242.138 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Modern monetary theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 108.44.242.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257368995 by MrOllie (talk)"
2. 15:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "As noted there is not consensus, if you continue you will be reported to the edit warring noticeboard I've already contacted all the people you have been defaming, and they agree you are basically defaming their work"
3. 15:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "removing that MMT supports a zero interest rate policy is POV pushing, sorry dude, it is supported by secondary sources"
4. 15:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1256886571 by MrOllie (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "/* This article is incredibly flawed and inaccurate - likely vandalized. */ Reply"

Comments:

Pro-fringe pov pushing. Note that one of the edit summaries contains a threat about defamation. IP has also been calling other users vandals in the linked talk page discussion. MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

MrOllie along with others have been defaming the works of a number of living MMT economists by implying they support universal tax increases as a primary response to inflation and that Murray Rothbard (who has been dead since 1995) has commented on MMT. The sources clearly establish a litany of ways MMT proposes to deal with inflation, both secondary and primary, and which are not limited to taxation. Recently New School NYC professor Andrés Bernal, among others, have come to Wikipedia try to explain some of of this to Ollie and Avatar, but neglected to mention the secondary sources also support more than just taxation as a way to address inflation from an MMT framework. Additionally, 0 sources state the MMT support a universal tax increase to combat inflation, not even the out of context quote in the WSJ hit job, making that implication something between a misleading fabrication and WP:UNDUE for the lede.

Mr. Ollie and Avatar have been engaging in edit warring against a broad number of people for months, including people inside and outside academia, and have only referenced 1-2 sources throughout the whole ordeal compared to the nearly dozen plus WP:RS sources they've reverted with often no reason given. Rather than taking an honest look at the Vox, Bloomerg, and many other sources in question they prefer to try to find ways to ban as many people who disagree with them as possible, and then stating no RS was given in talk. The most recent phrase in question, specifically "According to MMT, governments do not need to worry about accumulating debt since they can pay interest by printing money" has actually had no proper source presented for it whatsoever, is contradicted by the included source in any version of the lede, and Ollie keeps acting like the lede is untouchable by anyone just because another IP hasn't presented RS. There's even a Bloomberg article where the founder of MMT founder specifically advocates against excessive interest payments because of inflation worries, and is why he advocates a 0 interest rate policy. 108.44.242.138 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:5.59.181.17 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Nikolai Sudzilovsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.59.181.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59] + [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64], also gave them a contentious topics alert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The talk page has a discussion on the topic from 2008, but, well, who reads talk pages.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [65]

Comments:

• The IP is edit-warring trying to insert nationalistic bullshit into an article on a contentious topic. Their only conclusion was that I am a "Russian editor".Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I have also warned the IP about their nationalistic aspersions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I have added a CTOPS notice (ARBEE) to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:92.53.13.55 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Blocked 1 week; page protected for a month)

Page: Šar Mountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 92.53.13.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "No I see coordinated attack and bully from organized Bulgarian internet brigade. Why are you constantly obsessed with my country? And despite giving practical source you are still vandalising the page. If bigger Wikipedia moderators tolerate this let it be but individuals like these are destroying this website credibility. Undid revision 1257595118 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
2. 18:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Please explain how this is vandalism. It would be required against you indeed. Undid revision 1257589859 by Jingiby (talk)"
3. 18:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "It is an improvement because ~56% of Shara belongs to N. Macedonia and the local context is missing out, btw I live on the mountain and you can check it by the IP. Anyway I added a practical source Undid revision 1257588676 by Jingiby (talk)"
4. 18:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "As it writes this is Macedonian tradition and I added the local context about the name because it missed out in the article and it is well known among population here, you don't need academic sources but can simply check it in Google Translate. Just tried to use my knowledge and contribute to a better content :) Undid revision 1257583073 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
5. 17:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Added English source Undid revision 1257573778 by Βατο (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring and also making personal attacks. Note that the IP is also partially blocked for edit warring. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. @StephenMacky1:, the IP is not partially blocked Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  All right. Thank you. Must have been some sort of error then. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  Ponyo also protected the article for a month. I have added a CTOPS notice to the talk page Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Ship man five reported by User:RachelTensions (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Saint John, New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ship man five (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 20:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 19:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 15:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 15:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC) ""
6. 12:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC) "Insignificant information to be used as a introduction. The cities are nominally different in size. Outdated population numbers."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ Reply"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Signofgehenna reported by User:Create a template (Result: Resolved)

Page: Orbital (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User reported: Signofgehenna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Consistently reverting or adding back that Orbital is a "science fiction" book, even though there is ongoing discussion about whether or not that is a complete and representative description of its genre. He initially added it on 14 November despite not being classified as such for over a month of the article's existence. Their only argument is Razor and the existence of at least one or two MSM outlets calling it "science fiction".

I added to the talk page that I was removing the classification in the lead, but retained it as one of the genres in the infobox. By keeping it simple as "a novel", this best represented the multi nature of the book as not being a conventional or purely science fiction work. I communicated why I believe this to be the case, to which another person concurred.

He then proceeded to edit my talk page post, perverting what I had said, and then added the description back multiple times, despite me wanting to find consensus before possibly adding back the classification of "science fiction" in the first sentence of the page. This in spite of me attempting to further explain the weaknesses of his argument in the talk page.

Initial version which was the standard for at least a month:
[67]

His edit on Nov 14:
[68] "Added genre. Just because it won The Booker doesn't stop it being fiction about science."

My reversion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orbital_(novel)&oldid=1257707685 "It isn't strictly that genre"
along with an extensive argument as to why in the Talk page

Unacceptable edit on the talk page: [69]

Their abusive warring:
[70]
[71]
[72] Create a template (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

update: there seems to more willingness to compromise, will wait Create a template (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue somehow self-resolved for now. We can close this. Create a template (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Please close. This got heated, but assumed goodwill as per guidelines. Create a template's final edit, which satisfied all elements, is excellent work, thank you. Signofgehenna (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, please check the actual chat; at no point did I use aggressive language, unlike Create a template, who has a confusing, misleading handle. Signofgehenna (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:TheMasterofAllHitmans reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked one week)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
2. 17:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257596133 by Magical Golden Whip (talk) It’s been almost a day ago and so far, nobody else complained or bitched about it. My edits are only minor. You only reverted my edit because one person disagreed with me and you also have not responded on my talk page."
3. 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257561272 by Magical Golden Whip (talk)"
4. 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257468293 by Geraldo Perez (talk) Saying “it’s better” just shows favoritism and a bit of selfishness. All I did was just mention their last names and added two more commas. Also, iCarly is mostly episodic. There is no “story”."
5. 01:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257453035 by Geraldo Perez (talk) You're doing too much. There was nothing wrong with my edits. Plus, you need the commas for example: "Carly's older brother, Spencer,"."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1257597414

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at 3RR warning message

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week for edit-warring and personal attacks. Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:WickedFanAccount reported by User:Happily888 (Result: No violation)

Page: Wicked (2024 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "This is a change I made before you came in. YOU need to start the discussion. Not me. Part I is not a subtitle"
2. 04:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "No colon as per source AND sequel title"
3. 03:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "no colon in onscreen title"
4. 20:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC) "Onscreen title AND source both use a Roman numeral"
5. 06:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC) "I did."
6. 02:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC) ""
7. 02:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC) ""
8. 02:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC) "Message re. Wicked (2024 film) (HG) (3.4.12)."
2. 03:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
3. 04:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wicked (2024 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Wicked Part I or Wicked: Part I */ re"

Comments:

persistent vandalism and disregarding of MOS/NC; frequent edit warring. Also WP:SPA. Happily888 (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Let the record show that this was a contribution I made. Changing a "1" to a "I" as per the source listed and newfound information. Someone else added in the colon. I was told I had to start a discussion to get it changed. Why do *I* have to be the one to disscuss? Shouldn't the person who MADE the change do that? WickedFanAccount (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
• @Happily888: What "persistent vandalism"?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't looked too deeply into the page history but I can see that the reporter looks like they have made four reverts during the last 24 hours, and may have broken 3RR. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:27, 16 November 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. I am pleased to see that the editors have taken this to the talk page. We most definitely do not need a repeat of this. H888 has reverted four times in the last 24 hours, but I don't on the face of things see their last revert as confrontational, since, counterintuitive as it might seem, it is what the cited source says. Whether that's their typo should be allowed to be hashed out on the talk page as well. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Shawndmxk reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Declined)

Page: Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shawndmxk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]
4. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [79]

Comments:
Declined As annoying as this no doubt must be over the last several days I do not see any evidence that you've attempted to resolve this on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:60.227.221.174 reported by User:Rift (Result: Page protected)

Page: Faygo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 60.227.221.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [87] User has not responded to any talk page, article talk page, or edit summary messages.

Comments:
Has also carried on this edit war using accounts Forggot112 and Funify01. Rift (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected Aoidh (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:ErickTheMerrick reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Hasmonean dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Theocratic shouldn't link to constitutional monarchy 1258051719 by Nikkimaria (talk)"
2. 20:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "Nothing you linked applied here 1258028260 by Remsense (talk)"
3. 19:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "Added links in government box due to there not being any"
4. 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "All I did was rearrange them so they were grammatically correct 1258025901 by Remsense (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Belgium."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Currently edit warring across a half dozen other articles simultaneously. User is explicitly refusing to discuss their edits, as in this edit summary: [88] Doesn’t require talk page, its a common sense edit I’m not willing to discuss with you 1258069316 by Nikkimaria MrOllie (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to do if the editor is not willing to discuss their changes. The immediate impression anyone would get is this editor is simply not suitable for the Wikipedia environment. WP:NOTHERE. Agree edits summaries like the following aren't a good sign I didn't want to discuss it with him due to every talk we have we just disagree and nothing happens. It’s just a back and forth. Regarding this edit, I disagree with nikkimaria’s assertion to this being over linking. Editors are trying to explain as seen at User talk:ErickTheMerrick#New message to ErickTheMerrick.... but they are continuing to revert - this exact point has already been raised on their talk page previously with other editing practices questioned. Moxy🍁 03:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like they're taking part in discussion at their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bishonen | tålk 14:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:PerspicazHistorian reported by User:RationalIndia (Result: Blocked from article for a month and given CTOPS alert)

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

Previous version reverted to: [89]

. Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]}}

despite of edit warning from me and User:Ekdalian [93] [94] ,the user continue to push his POV RI ^talk 10:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

edit warring was started by @RationalIndia by deleting whole article rather than discussing the issue in talk page. the article has been in existence since 2004, no need to delete whole article. User vandalizing the article. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not deleted anything, I merged it into correct article. Even after my merge , one editor reverted it then I discussed why I did it in his talk , after i continued..

Multiple times my redirects is verified by Page reviewers as a correct. RI ^talk 11:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Visit All INDIA VEERASHAIVA MAHASABHA official website, and click three line menu in top left corner choose Veerashaiva option and read what it is written. http://www.veerashaivamahasabha.org/Home/About

the content related to Panchacharyas in Veerashaiva is merged to Correct title, I am not deleted anything which is well sourced.

Veerashaiva article redirected to Lingayatism, i did nothing wrong here. RI ^talk 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month from the article and alerted to CTOPS (which should have been done a long time ago). Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:176.113.180.173 reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Page protected)

Page: History of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 176.113.180.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A176.113.180.173&diff=&oldid=1257941683 Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Unexplained reverts"
2. 14:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Wasn't much of a compromise"
3. 09:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC) "Correction"
4. 23:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "Correction"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on History of Africa."
2. 14:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

Has been reverted by at least four other editors at this point. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy tag @Kowal2701 --AntiDionysius (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I've also opened a discussion at ANI. Should I request that be closed? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh woops, that's my bad, I didn't mean to duplicate. I think it's probably fine; if/when the issue is resolved in one forum we can just make sure to close the other discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think their edits are too similar to User:NutmegCoffeeTea's for me to ignore so I might request a check user, although I don't believe it's her Kowal2701 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:PlatinumClipper96 reported by User:ShawarmaFan07 (Result: Page protected)

Page: East London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PlatinumClipper96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User repeatedly reverted their preferred edit back into the East London wikipedia page [95]. I asked them to retain [96] original edit until we finally get a consensus, whether it supported their edits or otherwise. I also told them to stop so we can talk about it several times such as [one], but again, they reverted back to their wanted revision.[97]. They must stop reverting and continue with the discussion thread, rather than triggering chaos on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawarmaFan07 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 18 November 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. there have only been two reverts by either party in the past 24 hours and none for a few hours now, so there is no breach of the 3RR. It looks like there is a discussion underway at Talk:East London and I suggest both @ShawarmaFan07: and @PlatinumClipper96: continue with that course, see common ground, and refrain from continuing the edit war on the article. If you can't come to an agreement, use the processes at WP:DR to help you progress. No action taken now, but if edit warring continues then one or both may be blocked.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It is slow, but it is an edit war, and it has been going on for months. Both parties have requested administrative action, so I have protected the page and restored a stable, pre-edit war revision for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:ShawarmaFan07 reported by User:PlatinumClipper96 (Result: Page protected)

Page: East London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ShawarmaFan07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98] (original bold edit, IP is most likely ShawarmaFan07 based on contribs [99] [100])
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]
5. [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105] [106]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [107]

Comments:
ShawarmaFan07 made a bold edit (as an IP user) on 5th August, changing the long-standing wording on East London, which described it as "the northeastern part of London, England", to "the northeastern part of Greater London" [108]. I reverted this new wording here [109], with an explanation as to why this new wording is incorrect.

The user then reverts my revert [110] rather than initiating a talk page discussion. I reinstated the original wording on 3rd October [111].

The user reverted my revert again on [112] 17th October, this time starting a talk page discussion [113] (which I did not see and was not pinged into). I became aware of this today, reverting back to the original wording [114] and attempting to engage in a talk page discussion [115] [116].

They immediately revert again [117], and then again [118], telling me "Please stop. Continue the discussion first before we can check whether or not we can keep your edit or have it reverted". The latest addition to the talk page was mine, made 3 hours prior to their latest revert.

This user has recently received a block for edit warring. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

They added these [119] "warnings" to my talk page.

The user has also received several warnings on their talk page for disruptive editing on several other articles. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:23, 18 November 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 above, there have only been two reverts by either party in the past 24 hours and none for a few hours now, so there is no breach of the 3RR. It looks like there is a discussion underway at Talk:East London and I suggest both @ShawarmaFan07: and @PlatinumClipper96: continue with that course, see common ground, and refrain from continuing the edit war on the article. If you can't come to an agreement, use the processes at WP:DR to help you progress. No action taken now, but if edit warring continues then one or both may be blocked.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It is slow, but it is an edit war, and it has been going on for months. Both parties have requested administrative action, so I have protected the page and restored a stable, pre-edit war revision for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Mut.Greg reported by User:Amakuru (Result: Partially blocked for 2 weeks from 2 articles)

Page: Rwandan genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 13:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision"
3. 11:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 07:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1258127263 by Indy beetle (talk)"
5. 06:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1257972216 by Wowzers122 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rwandan genocide."
2. 14:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "/* November 2024 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Recent edits */ new section"

Comments:

These edits have been reverted by several editors and they alter the agreed language and nomenclature on this page as well as altering sourced figures on the death toll and other details. Editor seems to be a WP:SPA with the only edits being to Rwandan genocide and Paul Kagame, all pushing a particular POV that doesn't have consensus. They also made a bizarre edit at Commons, turning a picture of Kagame upside down.[120]  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from 2 articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:86.184.52.46 reported by User:FifthFive (Result:Article block for editor for 31 hours)

Page: Isles of Scilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.184.52.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "added correctly sourced material."
2. 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Climate */ adding sourced material regarding Isles of Scilly climate."
3. 22:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Added material supported by multiple reliable sources."
4. 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1258243354 by Uness232 (talk) rv Vandalism. Stop removing correctly sourced material."
5. 22:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1258241139 by Uness232 (talk)rv vandalism and unexplained removal of sourced material."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC) "Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Uness232 "/* Isles of Scilly climate dispute */ Reply"

Comments:

The IP opened a discussion at WP:DRN but has continued to add back the disputed content. Uness232, the other editor in the dispute, has also gone past 3 reverts (though they weren't given an appropriate warning). FifthFive (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd add, as an uninvolved editor who has just discovered this dispute in the past few minutes, that this IP editor has at times quite clearly crossed the line into personal attacks too, such as here and here, in the edit summary. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

AGF. Look at the edit history and the other editor. He's adding ludicrous claims that the Scilly Islands, Bordeaux and Istanbul are "sub tropical". It makes Wikipedia look ridiculous. Trewartha's classification clearly states that marine locations have to be frost-free. None of these locations are frost-free. It also defies common sense - have you visited any of these places in winter? They are not subtropical by any stretch. I'll stop editing. But please look at the article history before you pass judgment and enforce the 3RR on the other editor or lock the page. Allowing unsourced claims that places are "subtropical" just makes the platform look silly and untrustworthy. 86.184.52.46 (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The two editors who were edit-warring on this article have been blocked from editing this article for 31 hours. There is an RFC on the article talk page to try to resolve this dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:זור987 reported by User:Dorian Gray Wild (Result: No violation)

Page: Erez Da Drezner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: זור987 (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. 1006494532, 04:58, February 13, 2021
2. 1258371042, 09:24, November 19, 2024
3. 1258371216, 09:26, November 19, 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1258371216, 09:26, November 19, 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 903690031, 09:33, June 27, 2019

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1258377001, 10:38, November 19, 2024

Comments:
The edit summary of the user, as well as his immediate edit war, are not accepted. I am not "dumb" and I do not "troll" anyone. I explained well why SD should not apply upon the article, and the user has to accept it instead of bullying me. --DgwTalk 10:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Here I add this diff: 1258377246, 10:41, November 19, 2024, which has the edit summary: "Complete nonsence". --DgwTalk 10:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No edit warring was done. This rude user wanted to cancel my purposed deletion of his article, about an anonymous Israeli person which even don't have an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia, and that his encyclopedic importance is doubtful. He also tracking me in the Hebrew Wikipedia and posting his results in the English Wikipedia, and tends to flood the English Wikipedia and another languages Wikipedia with article about disability in Israel, which most of them have no encyclopedic importance, such as that article that I wanted to purpose deleting it. זור987 (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. Additionally, the "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is a different article entirely. Take conduct complaints to WP:AN/I. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 11:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Malik-Al-Hind reported by User:Someguywhosbored (Result: User blocked for two weeks)

Page: Maurya Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malik-Al-Hind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121]
2. [122]
3. [123]
4. [124]
5. [125]
6. [126]
7. [127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129] and [130]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [131]

Comments:
Theres been a lot of discussion on the mauryan empire page about the maps that are currently in use. Malik-Al-Hind made 7 reverts over a very short period of time. I had attempted to solve this on the article and user talk pages. I sent him a warning and despite some back and forward arguing, he did claim that he would refrain from edit warring in the future. I thought that would be the end of it, until he decided to revert another edit without attaining consensus on the talk page first. Which is why I finally decided to bring this here. Worst part is, he had actually recieved another warning less than 24 hours prior for edit warring. Requesting administative intervention. Forgive me if I made any mistakes in the process of filing this report. First time I've brought an issue like this here. {Someguywhosbored (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)}

Edit warring is when you revert someone's edit thrice. I will be honest here, I did commit edit warring yesterday, I accept i didn't have a count on my reverts and I accidentally reverted for the 4th time, For which i apologized here.[132] and my apology was accepted by numerous experienced editors here [133] including by @Someguywhosbored himself here.[134]. I did promise to not engage myself in edit warring again, which was accepted. I should had made a count on my reverts, and I didn't revert anything again after that and continued seeking a consensus in the talk page. So there was no need for @Someguywhosbored to report me after this agreement.

The thing went wrong here [135] when @Edasf added a map after seeking an agreement in the talk page [136] [137] [138]. And I did nothing except for adding WP:RS sources and fixing the errors in it. [139]. @Someguywhosbored then reverted the edit when it was literally posted by the agreement of several people. To which, i reverted his edit back.

Now Let us check the definition of "edit warring"

There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.[140]

If you revert someone's edit thrice in 24 hours, you have commited edit warring. Thus I commited no edit warring here since I reverted only once, because the change was made by someone else after an agreement by several editors in the talk page. I felt like there was no reason for him to revert the changes made by @Edasf. I did commit edit warring yesterday by breaking the three revert rule yesterday by accidentally reverting for the 4th time, but i apologized to not repeat the same mistake (which I didn't repeat.) and all the editors including @Someguywhosbored himself accepted the apology. So there was no need of him to report me today.

He reverted an edit and a change which was made after the agreement of several editors, for which he got criticized by few editors too like [141][142]. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, a lot to unpack here.

“ himself here.[68]. I did promise to not engage myself in edit warring again, which was accepted. I should had made a count on my reverts, and I didn't revert anything again after that and continued seeking a consensus in the talk page. So there was no need for @Someguywhosbored to report me after this agreement.

The thing went wrong here [69] when @Edasf added a map after seeking an agreement in the talk page [70] [71][72]. And I did nothing except for adding WP:RS sources and fixing the errors in it. [73]. @Someguywhosbored then reverted the edit when it was literally posted by the agreement of several people. To which, i reverted his edit back.

Now

If you revert someone's edit thrice, you have commited edit warring. Thus I commited no edit warring here since I reverted only once, because the change was made by someone else after an agreement by several editors in the talk page.”

For one, you did revert an edit after the warning. See the last diff of the report. Secondly, I don’t quite follow your last point. You’re saying you didn’t edit war because you only made one revert after you were warned? That’s not how it works. You still made a 7th revert in the same article. You were warned multiple times and instead of taking it seriously, you continued to edit war.

“ someguywhosbored himself accepted the apology. So there was no use of him to report me today.”

I only reported you when you decided to revert an edit on the same article despite being warned. You told me you’d stop, but than you did the exact same thing.

“He reverted an edit and a change which was made after the agreement of several editors, for which he got criticized by few editors too.

I made a bold edit which I didn’t push after being reverted the second time. That’s a far cry from edit warring, nor was it even disruptive. But regardless, that’s quite irrelevant.

“ And I did nothing except for adding WP:RS sources and fixing the errors in it.”

You mean you added a map despite not gaining consensus for doing so? See BRD. ONUS was on you for gaining consensus, so you should have never reverted anybody in the first place.

It was clear that nothing was going to change until I took this issue here. Someguywhosbored (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"For one, you did revert an edit after the warning. See the last diff of the report. Secondly, I don’t quite follow your last point. You’re saying you didn’t edit war after the warning because you only made one revert? That’s not how it works. You still made a 7th revert in the same article. You were warned multiple times and instead of taking it seriously, you continued to edit war."

This is not how edit warring works. As I showed you the literal definition of edit warring which is to make 3 reverts under 24 hours. I apologized and promised to not "edit war" again [143], I didn't say i wouldn't revert your edit if it is against the consensus by the editors. I was warned by you, and I took the warning seriously and didn't engage in edit war at all. As I proved, I only made 1 revert in 24 hours. Which is nowhere close to edit warring. So yes I didn't edit warring after getting warned.

"I only reported you when you decided to revert an edit on the same article despite being warned. You told me you’d stop, but than you did the exact same thing."

I promised to stop "edit warring", which I did really stop from doing. When did I say i wouldn't revert someone's edit in the page if it's really needed? Moreoever you were the one who reverted edasf's edit first who literally made the change after having an agreement of several editors who were involved in the previous discussion.

"I made a bold edit which I didn’t push after being reverted the second time. That’s a far cry from edit warring, nor was it even disruptive. But regardless, that’s quite irrelevant."

It is not irrelevant though, you were making a change in the article without seeking a consensus, you were making a change to the long standing map which was there in the article since 2004. It is not 'irrelevant". Other editors criticized you for doing that.

"You mean you added a map despite not gaining consensus for doing so? See BRD. ONUS was on you for gaining consensus, so you should have never reverted anybody in the first place. It was clear that nothing was going to change until I took this issue here."

What do you mean "you added" it was Edasf who added the map after an agreement by several editors who engaged in the previous discussion in MEM. [144] [145] [146] At this point you are just doing this because you simply don't agree with the said change.

Again, I did accidentally broke the 3 revert rule by reverting for the 4th time, for which i apologized and other editors including you yourself accepted the apologies. I promised to not edit war again, which i genuinely didn't, so there was no need for a report which just got filed after more than 24 hours of the said discussion (where you yourself along with several editors gave it a chance by letting it go).. Just because I reverted your change today once it doesn't mean it was edit warring, I simply reverted back to the change Edasf made after an agreement in the talk page. Since edit warring is when you revert someone thrice in 24 hours, this is neither edit warring, nor disruptive . Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is what you’re not getting. By reverting for the 7th time(or first time after your warning), you’re continuing to edit war. You need to read 3RR one more time.

“ An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below exemptions.”

The warning doesn’t absolve you from your previous edits.

If you make 4 edits in 24 hours, that’s edit warring. If you make a 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark, that’s still edit warring especially if combined with other edit warring behavior. Yes that’s probably something you missed. A 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark is still considered edit warring. It’s not 3 reverts in 24 hours and the counter resets. That’s not how it works. And getting warned doesn’t reset the amount of times you reverted previously. So by reverting again, right after getting warned, you’re continuing to edit war.

I think I made it pretty clear. If you can’t accept that, than I don’t know how to convince you on this matter so I’ll just wait until an administrator or experienced editor informs you on how it works.

“ What do you mean "you added" it was Edasf who added the map after an agreement by several editors who engaged in the previous discussion in MEM. [78] [79] [80] At this point you are just doing this because you simply don't agree with the said change.”

Again this is probably not a matter for the edit warring noticeboard. Regardless I’ll make this quick. Both you and Edasf tried adding a map without gaining consensus. Once you’ve been reverted, per WP:ONUS, the burden is on the editor who is seeking to include disputed content. For example Fowler and me both had issues with it. Fowler didn’t even think a second map was necessary, let alone a third one. Regardless, once your edit was reverted, you’re supposed to gain consensus before reverting or adding the disputed content again which you didn’t do. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyway I’d rather just let an admin decide on what to do than continue to argue about this. Someguywhosbored (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

"If you make 4 edits in 24 hours, that’s edit warring. If you make a 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark, that’s still edit warring especially if combined with other edit warring behavior. Yes that’s probably something you missed. A 4th revert outside of the 24 hour mark is still considered edit warring. It’s not 3 reverts in 24 hours and the counter resets. That’s not how it works. And getting warned doesn’t reset the amount of times you reverted previously. So by reverting again, right after getting warned, you’re continuing to edit war.

I think I made it pretty clear. If you can’t accept that, than I don’t know how to convince you on this matter so I’ll just wait until an administrator or experienced editor informs you on how it works."

Huh,Let me Make sure that the 4th revert which I made was not even related to the topic i got warned at 24 hours ago. When I got warned for supposedly edit warring I accepted it and didn't revert it further and kept discussing in the talk page, for which you and other editors even accepted the apologies. Why is it that you reported me merely because I restored a change which was established after an agreement by several editors in the talk page, That too "after" 24 hours and the revert which I made after 24 hours wasn't even related to the previous topics. It was Edasf who posted the supposed map after "discussing" in the talk page and after getting an "agreement"[147] [148] [149]on it by almost all editors who participated in the previous discussion. You were the one who reverted him[150], I merely "restored" his revision.[151].

So this is not at all edit warring, Read again:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below exemptions.”

Edit warring simply refers to a 4 continuous/series of reverts made within or just exact after 24 hours. My revert was neither continuous nor it was even in a series, it was not related to the previous discussion. I merely restored someone else's revision, i repeat this. I merely made 1 revert within 24 hours. So it is not edit warring.

"Again this is probably not a matter for the edit warring noticeboard. Regardless I’ll make this quick. Both you and Edasf tried adding a map without gaining consensus. Once you’ve been reverted, per WP:ONUS, the burden is on the editor who is seeking to include disputed content. For example Fowler and me both had issues with it. Fowler didn’t even think a second map was necessary, let alone a third one. Regardless, once your edit was reverted, you’re supposed to gain consensus before reverting or adding the disputed content again which you didn’t do."

What do you mean it is not related? You made a certain claim that the consensus wasn't reached, That is the point, almost every editor who participated in the previous discussion agreed, even Joshua Jonathan who was previously arguing against it[152]. Fowler indeed was having problems with the supposed second map but in the end he agreed for the status quo and accepted the second map. When you pinged him constantly for his opinions, look what he said here [153] [154], He clearly doesn't even want to get involved in the conversation anymore, he clearly said that he has better changes to make on the page rather than just arguing on maps, He has to work on the lead and he doesn't worry about it. (If he had a problem, he would revert me like he did previously). Leaving only you who is having a problem with the supposed map now and it is not like i didn't invite you for a discussion on the talk page, I clearly did and that too several times to clear your issues with it. But you never responded and always kept refraining from the discussion And when it was finally agreed by almost All editors (who took part in the previous discussion), Edasf posted the said map, which you clearly reverted without talking in the talk page. And when i merely restored his revision you accused me of edit warring, which i don't think so was edit warring given the previous reasons. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment @Malik-Al-Hind: FYI, while three reverts in 24 hours is a bright line rule, it doesn't mean that you have to break it to violate the edit warring rule. From the policy page Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached (Note: this is not a comment on the report.)RegentsPark (comment) 15:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  I do agree about that, But I clearly apologized to not do that again, The 4th revert was accidental and I still apologised for that (and I still do), The apology was accepted by several editors[155] including the reporter himself [156]. And I didn't continue to revert the map anymore after that, the infobox is still the same as it was before. You can go and check yourself. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  “I didn’t continue to revert the map anymore, the info box is the same”. That’s because I didn’t revert again. The info box wasn’t even what I was focused on in the last edit. The problem was adding a map in the body without reaching consensus first. And your edit is still there because you never decided to self revert.

  Also if you truly understood what RegentPark was saying, then you wouldn’t have pasted the same quote you sent again. Because he clearly states that edit warring can still bring forth administrative action even if you don’t break 3RR(which you did). So why did you cite the same exact quote about 3RR?

  Also you keep bringing up parts of the debate which have nothing to do with the issue at hand which is edit warring.

  “ So this is not at all edit warring, Read again:

  "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below exemptions.”

  Edit warring simply refers to a 4 continuous/series of reverts made within or just exact after 24 hours. My revert was neither continuous nor it was even in a series, it was not related to the previous discussion. I merely restored someone else's revision, i repeat this. I merely made 1 revert within 24 hours. So it is not edit warring.”

  How was it not continuous? You made these edits in less than 48 hours away from each other(at least 4 edits in 24 hours). They were on the same page. They were definitely continuous.

  And no consensus was not reached. You randomly added the third map before consensus settled on that matter. Fowler didn’t even say anything about adding the third map in the links you sent so I have no idea why you shared them?

  Anyway regardless of whether you think you’re right or wrong, you’re not supposed to edit war.

  “ I merely made 1 revert within 24 hours. So it is not edit warring”

  Your 7th revert was made literally within 24 hours of the last 3 reverts you made prior. You’re basically saying that you’re free to make another 3 reverts in the same article where you were given a warning for edit warning. Does that not just sound wrong to you? You made 7 reverts.

  Im not sure how a warning is supposed to absolve you from you’re previous reverts. Anyway this is probably going to be my last comment until an administrator arrives. I don’t think there is really a point in me debating about this. If you can’t see that your edit warring, then I’ll just let an admin explain it to you. I’m done here until then. Someguywhosbored (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks since a) they have been blocked for edit warring previously this year and, b) in the wake of that, alerted to CTOPS (though I'm not making this an ArbCom enforcement block yet) So they have no excuse, least of all trying to claim (incorrectly, as Regents Park helpfully points out above) that they're in the clear because they never reverted four times in 24 hours. And though they did revert an accidental fourth revert, the problem is that they have continued making reverts.

I would say that the lengthy discussion above proves why you need to hash this out on the talk page ... except for the fact that the talk page has an even longer, yet equally heated, discussion about the actual content; here we have Malik sticking to his story that he didn't violate any policies because he followed the letter of 3RR. Well, as he is but the latest to learn, that is seriously missing the point, and when you miss that point, it usually never fails but to hit you dead-on. As it has here.

You now have a lot of time to catch your breath and reflect, Malik. Use it wisely. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:185.78.17.92 reported by User:QEnigma (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: David Harewood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 185.78.17.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "Original research is NOT correctly reflecting the references. This edit correctly reflects the sources. Please check the quoted references before reverting"
2. 18:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "That is editoralising. This correctly reflects the content and the references"
3. 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "Reparations is by definition compensation. If you want reparations here then find a suitable reference about Harewood, otherwise the heading reflects the content"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC) to 17:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 17:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Enslaved ancestors */Nothing in section is about reparations. The section is about his ancestors, with interest in acknowledgement and apologies"
   2. 17:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Politics */Unnecessary"
   3. 17:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Career */Unnecessary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research on David Harewood."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC) on David Harewood "Restored revision 1258433621 by DeCausa (talk): Reverted. Original research. Please discuss in the talk page for a consensus"

Comments:

Continued introduction of own/self opinion in spite of repeated advice to seek a broader consensus to effecting major changes. QEnigma (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

User:MysticCipher87(alt-account) reported by User:GhostOfDanGurney (Result: Blocked)

Page: JTG Daugherty Racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daugherty Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect"
2. 12:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daughtery Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect: It's not rumors; it's confirmed by multiple sources, plus physical sources such as the shop sign was changed."
3. 12:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daughtery Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect: It's not rumors; it's confirmed by multiple sources, plus physical sources such as the shop sign. was changed."
4. 11:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daughtery Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect: It's confirmed by multiple sources plus physical sources such as the shop sign was changed."
5. 11:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "MysticCipher87(alt-account) moved page JTG Daugherty Racing to Hyak Motorsports over redirect: It's pretty much confirmed at this point that JTG became Hyak Motorsports."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on JTG Daughtery Racing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Hyak Motorsports "/* Team name */ new section"

Comments:

Repeatedly move warring to restore their preferred article title, despite opposition on the talk page. Reliable sources from yesterday are still using the name "JTG Daugherty Racing" MC87 responded by citing a blog that accepts WP:UGC, then moved the page again. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User continues to edit war, and has done this on the past with other unsourced changes. glman (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, they are also currently edit warring at 2025 NASCAR Cup Series:

[157]

[158]

[159] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm counting 7 moves of the same page in less than 24 hours, absolutely inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Edasf reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: Stale)

Page: Maurya Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edasf (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. [160]
2. [161]
3. [162]
4. [163]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [164]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]

• Talk:Maurya Empire#Better Map
• Talk:Maurya Empire#Map

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [166]

Comments:

My 4th edit wasn't a revert at all so I didn't violate 3RR and after 3rd revert I went talk page so ya but I would still apologise if edit war please accept it.Edasf«Talk» 11:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 actually violated it by doing a 4th revert as well a self rv. Edasf«Talk» 11:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Edasf, I self-reverted my revert, thus that revert as well as the self-revert doesn't count per WP:3RR. Additionally, your most recent edit was a partial revert as you removed one of the two maps I added, and thus it is included in 3RR as well. However, you can self-revert as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it was misleading I added a similar map too.@PadFoot2008 Edasf«Talk» 11:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR by reverting more than 3 times. Unless you self-revert, you risk getting blocked for violating 3RR. PadFoot (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 I did a self rv Edasf«Talk» 13:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am withdrawing my report then. PadFoot (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Also removal of contentious thing is a exemption in 3RR Edasf«Talk» 11:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

That exemption only applies to WP:BLP, i.e, Biographies of Living Persons. PadFoot (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I am withdrawing my report as the editor has self-reverted. PadFoot (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Page: Bratislava

User being reported: Dasomm

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:
Hello, shortly I’ve made an infobox update of Bratislava which includes some more notable monuments of Bratislava as a capital and historic city. Now, i’m not saying that it should stay like that, but keep reverting my edits and giving explaination like “I prefer it this way better” shows that username Dasomm just wants to edit for his personal pleasure which that not Wikipedia is about. To continue, the old version had 3 pictures that show the st. Martins Cathedral, which is unnecessary and as a person who lives in Austria and Slovakia, knows that there are more valuable monuments to Bratislava infobox. This is the first time I’m writing a complaint and I know we can make it work. We can share and fix what’s bothering but not revert my edits, just beacuse someone perfers his own edit more.

SatelliteChange — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatelliteChange (talk • contribs) 20:55, 21 November 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) 23:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Skornezy reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to: [167]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]
5. [172]
6. [173]
7. [174]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Phoenix Program#K. Barton Osborne and Talk:Phoenix Program#Yes, the Phoenix Program really did officially begin in 1967; Mztourist is in denial

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [176]

Comments:
I asked for more eyes on the page on the Military History noticeboard: [177] and was accused of canvassing by Skornezy: [178]. On top of the earlier personal attack of suggesting I'm dyslexic: [179]. User:The Bushranger warned us both for edit-warring and protected the page, but declined to block because we were attempting to resolve the issues on the Talk Page. I was unable to reach any agreement with Skornezy on changes to this page. Another uninvolved user User:Intothatdarkness gave input: Talk:Phoenix_Program#Blowtorch which Skornezy ignored. Skornezy requested a third opinion here: [180], but then withdrew the request here: [181]. Skornezy then went and made all their edits again: [182], which is a continuation of the edit-war and clear breach of the edit-war warning. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that there is no WP:3RR violation since the page had been protected for 24 hours, I'm not sure how my recent edits after the page-protection expired can be considered edit warring [183] and the admin who protected the page, User:The Bushranger, at least tacitly didn't think so either because he did not block me when Mztourist asked him to and instead suggested Mztourist take it to WP:EWN [184]; Mztourist in response said that he was "very disappointed" in the admin and accused the admin of apparently "ducking this." [185]

While I admit, and apologize, that my edits before the page-protection constituted edit-warring and a violation of WP:3RR (as were Mztourist's edits), my recent edits consisted of the addition of reliable sources unrelated to our dispute on when the Phoenix Program began [186][187][188] and objective improvements by correcting the misspelling of a person's name [189]. I also removed an inaccurate citation of Woodruff 2000 [190] that went unnoticed and undiscussed when Mztourist added it to the article in August 2020 [191]. During the period of page-protection, I clearly pointed this out to Mztourist on the talk page that his citation of Woodruff 2000 to state that "Osborne [sic] served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented" is not accurate because Woodruff 2000 itself states that "American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix"! [192] Moreover, I engaged in discussion to demonstrate why I think Woodruff is an unreliable WP:PRIMARY source, [193] including by providing reliable sources with more credentials than Woodruff has that state that Woodruff engages in "revisionist military history"[194], makes erroneous claims, and "ignores the individual experiences of the majority of the soldiers who voluntarily spoke to reporters, participated in ad hoc war crimes hearings, or contacted their congressmen"[195]. Is this not a form of WP:BRD or am I mistaken here?

I didn't "accuse" you of of canvassing. In that diff I simply asked you: "who did you ping? I suspect you're now trying to improprely [sic] WP:Canvass the article to push your preferred version." [196]

"On top of the earlier personal attack of suggesting I'm dyslexic"

Why are you not mentioning that I already I apologized to you for that comment? [197] That comment was wrong and I apologize again; I was frustrated and it was wrong to ask that. Moreover, why are you also not mentioning that you repeatedly violated WP:AGF with comments such as these throughout pretty much our entire discussion? "You clearly have no interest in actually improving the page to accurately describe the evolution of what became Phoenix, rather you just want to just want to reinforce your view that the US military and CIA were systematically torturing and murdering people ... Claiming repeatedly that you have done so is dishonest ... You really are devoting a lot of time to pushing your POV here, rather than actually improving pages ... The anti-US POV that you push across multiple pages. Why am I assuming you're not acting in good faith? ... seems pretty disingenuous ... I don't AGF from you at this point" [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203]

Another uninvolved user User:Intothatdarkness gave input: which Skornezy ignored.

How did I ignore that user when I clearly responded to him, engaged with his points, [204] [205] and addressed them by providing excerpts from reliable sources? [206] Moreover, as you'll noitce, User:Intothatdarkness himself left the discussion, stating "I'll leave you to your clear misunderstanding of how things work. Sorry to have wasted my time here." [207] Why would you say that I ignored him when I very clearly did not and he left the discussion on his own accord?

"Skornezy requested a third opinion here: [102], but then withdrew the request here: [103]"

Okay? I didn't feel it was pertinent, what does that have to do with edit-warring? Skornezy (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what Mztourist even finds objectionable about these recent edits [208] for it be even considered edit-warring; our main dispute was over when the Phoenix Program began, but those edits have nothing to do with that. Skornezy (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a 3RR breach for it to be edit-warring. Reinstating your changes as soon as the 24hr protection expired was a continuation of the edit-warring. Mztourist (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, what exactly do you find objectionable about my recent edits? They're unrelated to our dispute over when the Phoenix Program began. I broached the topic with you here [209] when you complained to the admin to have me blocked on the talk page, but you never replied and instead filed this report. Skornezy (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Page protected By The Bushranger Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that was before this filing - the protection had expired and the OP believes the edit-warring had continued, hence their filing. As for why I didn't engage further on the issue - it was largely because when I came across this issue (notified by the OP's posting on WT:MILHIST), both of the participants here were edit-warring and were in fact past 3RR. Given there appeared to be an attempt at discussion ongoing at the article talk page, I decided it would be more constructive to revert the page to the status quo ante bellum and protect it for 24 hours, allowing discussion to proceed. When it didn't resolve the issue, I suggested it come here instead of taking further action as, given the circumstances, I was not entirely comfortable unilaterally taking further action on the issue without input from other admins, and hence here we are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Mztourist and The Bushranger!
• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User:2400:1A00:BB20:2506:70DF:A711:1461:1EF0 reported by User:VolatileAnomaly (Result: Declined)

Page: Sandeep Lamichhane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2400:1A00:BB20:2506:70DF:A711:1461:1EF0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 04:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "https://indianexpress.com/article/sports/cricket/sandeep-lamichhane-rape-case-innocent-t20-world-cup-nepal-high-court-9331388/ This is the link of news which says he was declared innocent. https://risingnepaldaily.com/news/50553#:~:text=By%20TRN%20Online%2C%20Kathmandu%2C%20Oct,by%20issuing%20a%20press%20release. Sandeep Lamichhane was granted US visa for WCL2 series, whoever is doing this is for defamation, that part is really not needed, if someone has to get warning they are them."
3. 03:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "He was declared innocent by the court, so that part is really not needed, why to put the stain, can you please stop ultra woke nonsense."
4. 03:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "Lawsuit and allegation part is not needed, ban whoever is editing this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Sandeep Lamichhane */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC) on User talk:2400:1A00:BB20:2506:70DF:A711:1461:1EF0 "/* Sandeep Lamichhane */ new section"

Comments:

Repeated attempts to remove sourced allegations regarding public figure. Notified user of policy on talkpage. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

VolatileAnomaly, please have a look at WP:BLPRESTORE and seek a consensus on the talk page before restoring the disputed content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is also a good option in cases like this as they will often provide more nuanced feedback and consensus than simply "all this content should stay" vs "all this content should be removed". At first glance this does look like whitewashing of notable and sourced content, but it does need better review before restoring wholesale.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ToBeFree and Ponyo for the feedback. I happened upon those edits while doing recent changes patrol and will be more cautious in the future before restoring disputed content. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and no worries ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

User:ImagineDragonsFan101 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Partial blocked for one month)

Page: Fortnite Festival (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ImagineDragonsFan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Added Information"
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) to 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Song announcements"
   2. 22:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Important Information about song announcements"
3. 22:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Added Important Information; with property linking"
4. 22:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Added Important Content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Dan Reynolds."
2. 22:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "re"
3. 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "re"
4. 23:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
5. 23:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC) "re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user that doesn't seem to be willing to listen to messages, advice and warnings. Assuming good faith, but this is disruptive. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Pblocked from editing the article for one month by Black Kite.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Madhumitha Hegde reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Blocked indefinitely for now)

Page: The Sabarmati Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Madhumitha Hegde (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. 13:47, 23 November 2024
2. 19:58, 19 November 2024
3. 15:59, 18 November 2024
4. 14:52, 17 November 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [210]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [211]

Comments:
Rampant edit warring for making unexplained reverts despite warnings.- Ratnahastin (talk) 11:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Superb Owl reported by User:MINQI (Result: Declined)

Page: Transnational repression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Superb Owl (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. [212]
2. [213]
3. [214]
4. [215]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [217]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [218]

Comments:

At first Superb Owl has removed point from chinese goverment, the news was reported by TDM (Macau), The Paper (newspaper) and Xinhua News Agency, with the reason "these media are state media or not have editorial independence from CCP on political topics", "Chinese goverment's accuse about Transnational repression is not relative to 'Transnational repression'" while he/she/Mx has quoted "News media: State-associated or state-controlled news organisations,…". Later the written about Assange from the resource "Gibbons, Chip - Jacobin" was deleted with the reason "not non-primary source" and "WP:DUE". At last the resolution from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from the resource RFI was exclused with the reason WP:DUE. In short, none accusation on US can appear under his/her//Mx's watch.MINQI (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

MINQI, as already pointed out on the talk page, the onus to obtain a consensus for inclusion is on you, not the others. Thanks for self-reverting; please keep it removed unless/until an RFC on the article's talk page is closed with consensus for adding the section. A third opinion is not an option anymore as there are already more than two opinions in the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

• Declined instead of blocking due to the self-revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Aihotz reported by User:Skitash (Result: Declined)

Page: 1924 retreat from Chefchaoun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aihotz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [219]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [220]
2. [221]
3. [222]
4. [223]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [225]

Comments:

Aihotz is persistently removing sourced content without a valid reason. They're insisting on using unsourced WP:OR figures they've introduced while claiming that "we cannot know how many are killed and how many are wounded", despite the fact that the body of the article clearly supports the content they're removing. Skitash (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Aihotz and Skitash, you're both clearly interested in discussing the matter; it's just unclear why that has to happen in edit summaries rather than on the talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Declined since discussion is taking place; I have suggested they bring in more editors somehow since they're still at loggerheads. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

User:65.94.47.192 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked from article for a month)

Page: Jonathan Di Bella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 65.94.47.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC) "Jonathan Giovanni Di Bella is an Italian and Canadian Citizen"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC) to 00:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 00:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC) "Di Bella is an Italian and Canadian citizen by passport"
   2. 00:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jonathan Di Bella."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article was reported at WP:RFPP, but the unsupported edits by the IP are the only disruption, and just as the IP has not violated 3RR (there are more "reverts" by the IP that aren't listed because Twinkle doesn't go back more than 48 hours), there isn't really enough activity to justify protection, so I warned the IP and reverted the IPs. They are insisting that Di Bella is Italian-Canadian, despite the fact that there are no sources that support that mixed nationality. I intend to revert once more after I file this. Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked from the article, for a month, since there are other editors on the IP making apparently constructive edits to unrelated articles. I have also left a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Eds Etd reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: 17:49, 24 November 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts: Eds Etd alone has four reverts; it reaches six if we also count 77.29.61.254, which is obviously them. For example, besides Pelagonia, check the activity of both in Novgorod Republic, hours apart from each other. Assuming I am right, this is a clear violation of WP:LOUTSOCK as well.

1. 19:33, 24 November 2024
2. 19:43, 24 November 2024
3. 20:19, 24 November 2024
4. 20:30, 24 November 2024 as IP 77.29.61.254
5. 20:33, 24 November 2024
6. 20:44, 24 November 2024 as IP 77.29.61.254

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 19:35, 24 November 2024
• 20:41, 24 November 2024
• 20:42, 24 November 2024

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 21:10, 24 November 2024

Comments:

• The editor has done it before too, see 1 and 2 as example. They also refuse to discuss their changes every time. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked. See block log for details. I've also blocked their IP for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

  Left CTOPS notice on talk page Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

User:DogeGamer2015MZT reported by User:The Black Revolutionary 2006 (Result: No violation and stale)

Page: 2012 Empire State Building shooting

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1258020439
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1256092123
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1225962022

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:
n/a

• No violation and stale. Also a mess that I'm not going to bother cleaning up.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Therealslimfan reported by User:Some1 (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Murder of Laken Riley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [226]
2. [227]
3. [228]
4. [229]
5. [230]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:Murder_of_Laken_Riley#See_also

Comments:

Editor is still reverting after an EW warning on their talk. 3 different editors have reverted them so far. Their latest revert also includes a WP:PA in the edit summary and their talk page comment defending their reverts aren't that WP:CIVIL either. Some1 (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

User:91.11.93.69 reported by User:Cooldudeseven7 (Result: Blocked one month)

Page: T.U.F.F. Puppy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 91.11.93.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC) "Bro, I Did Not Say That T.U.F.F. Puppy Has a TV-Y7 Rating! I'm Telling You This, It Has a TV-Y7-FV Rating! Oh, and Please Stop Putting Children's in There, Cause IT'S, NOT, FOR, CHILDREN, AT, ALL! It Also Did Not Rated TV-Y at All!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC) "Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC) on T.U.F.F. Puppy "Reverting edit(s) by 87.173.81.149 (talk) to rev. 1254560650 by Cooldudeseven7: TV-Y7 does premiere on childrens networks, so there for it would be more factual to say that this is a childrens show. It is premiered on childrens network. (I am trying to resolve peace, please input what you think) (UV 0.1.6)"

Comments:

1st. In the page history, another user made the same edit. It seems this user is trying to repeat that- We also see very close edit warring. He is insulting other users via another IP as said by his edit descriptions previously. "WIll you please stop changing that back, you stupid man?!" was an example of this. The user has done other evidences of edit warring as well, as seen in the page history of T.U.F.F. Puppy, a primary page related to his editing, but with a different IP. I have used another users diff as evidence of resolving as the same edits were made.

Other edits made by this user with offensive text:
1
2 Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for one month for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  thanks! Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Perez90 reported by User:CaribDigita (Result: No violation)

Page: Inter-American Court of Human Rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JPerez90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [231]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I added to the comments area that this his been talked about by academics plus media. To which they vandalized the page subsequently.

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

Comments:
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. The first edit submitted as a revert is merely the edit the next three reverted to (as I have noted in the past, a common mistake). I would also add, in addition to the partial malformation here, that the edit-war warning should be a formal {{uw-editwar}} made on the user's talk page, not in an edit summary. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I also, contrary to the above, note that the article talk page has seen no new edits in two and a half months. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Helpingothers1234 reported by User:SunDawn (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Tyler Chapa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Helpingothers1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC) "Bio"
2. 03:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC) "Add bio"
3. 17:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC) "Bio"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Tyler Chapa."
2. 02:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tyler Chapa."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Criminal history */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Pugnacitas reported by User:10mmsocket (Result: No violation)

Page: Västberga helicopter robbery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pugnacitas (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

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:

Brand new user. I initially reverted the change made and left a welcome notice on user's talk page plus an edit summary on the article to discuss on the article talk page. User then reverted with an notice in the edit summary to discuss on talk page, and I left a 3RR and WP:BRD note, again with an invitation to go to the article talk page. User ignored all and reverted again. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:48, 26 November 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) 21:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

There is an edit war independently of the three-revert rule, but WP:ONUS applies and 10mmsocket would have to seek a consensus before restoring the material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

User:2607:fea8:639f:8740:8138:a840:ad4d:ee4f reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: /64 blocked for a week)

Page: Naoya Inoue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2607:fea8:639f:8740:8138:a840:ad4d:ee4f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [233] – revision without subjective terminology

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [234] – Canadian IP reverting once
2. [235] – twice
3. [236] – thrice
4. [237] – going..
5. [238] – going some more..

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [239] – 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ongoing article talk page discussion

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [240]

Comments:
A Canadian IP, currently 2607:fea8:639f:8740:8138:a840:ad4d:ee4f, is back to edit warring at Naoya Inoue's article, having previously backed off in April after page protection. This time round, IP is fixated with the words "perfect" and "impressive" remaining in the article, despite MOS:PUFFERY recommending against doing so, and user Deaxmann striving to de-pufferise the article.

As well as disputing content, IP has also conduct issues, being uncivil towards User:Deaxmann and myself: [241], [242]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

IP's grasp on how editing works appears to be misguided. Apparently, because an article has contained certain words (now under dispute) for six years, there is no reason to ever change it: [243]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week The 2607:FEA8:639F:8740:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) range, to be precise. Unfortunately, Mac, they are not the first editor to think that language in an article must considered set in stone after a certain time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course. But to which MOS/guideline should I point such editors? I don't think it's WP:CCC, as there's nothing in the article for which consensus has been needed so far. Maybe WP:STABLE? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:8C40:5C50:CD55:7554:4E37:E336 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: /64 range blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Blackout Wednesday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2607:FEA8:8C40:5C50:CD55:7554:4E37:E336 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 03:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 03:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "True fact. https://www.canucksdaily.com/nhl/news/nhl-commissioner-gary-bettman-caught-knocking-back-drinks-during-utah-inaugural-game"
4. 02:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "True fact"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Blackout Wednesday."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keep adding unsourced content. -Lemonaka 03:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• /64 range blocked for 24 hours by Rsjaffe.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

User:85.249.23.105 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: Blocked for 31h)

Page: Fly-killing device (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.249.23.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Flypaper */"
2. 11:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 11:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Flypaper */"
4. 11:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 11:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Flypaper */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Fly-killing device."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clearly nonconstructive editing, change files to unrelated content. -Lemonaka 11:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h for vandalism by ScottishFinnishRadish.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

User:DTPPOLLSON reported by User:JeffUK (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Vada (food) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC) to 14:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 14:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC) ""
   3. 14:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 14:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Vada (food)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps re-adding the same detail, I'm not sure if this is a joke I don't get, an advert, or just WP:OR, Also editing on IP Special:Contributions/178.248.115.35 JeffUK 09:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Super Mario 1887 reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)

Page: James Rowe (footballer, born 1983) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Super Mario 1887 (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 14:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC) to 15:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 14:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "There is a discussion still open on this that has not been concluded. The edits surrounding dissent are still ambiguous at best. It would be findable on the FA fines and disciplinary site and it isn’t. Please see discussion. A compromise is that Rowe signed for Rugby and left. If the fine amount, date of fine and type of dissent is found then by all means this can be edited in."
   2. 15:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "Again this is being discussed as it not to be edited. Like me editors such as RedPatch have agreed that the edit isn’t necessary, Rowe is notable for his managerial career,"
   3. 15:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Managerial statistics */Going through the reference added for AFC Fylde statistic's these are the correct stats."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor continues edit warring immediately at end of ban. There are a number of discussions open on talk page together with a consensus on the way forward on how to handle the display of statistics. Editor has unilaterally decided to go their own way despite open discussions on talk page. Egghead06 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Egghead06 that simply isn’t true . The edits you made yesterday were not in line with open discussions with are being moderated. Once they have been concluded such as Lead in, or professional career on the page of James Rowe you can make this edit war point. However they are still

ongoing and therefore nothing has been agreed . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

As you have on the lead in and professional career. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely pblocked by Ponyo.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
• New editor with a very similar username to my own has now appeared making very similar edit requests - Headegg06. Isn’t this called Sockpuppetry?--Egghead06 (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Page:  
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [244]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [245]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [246]

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

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

Comments:

If he is accusing me of violating 3RR, Rechinul does not understand what "revert" means. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:17, 28 November 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) 18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Hdtbraz reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Page fully protected for 2 days, Hdtbraz warned)

Page: Morena Baccarin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 04:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC) to 04:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 04:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:13, 29 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Morena Baccarin."
2. 05:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Morena Baccarin."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Refuses invitation to engage on existing talk page discussion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've fully protected the page for two days so as to stop the edit warring.
  @Hdtbraz: If you continue to engage in reverts after this window is up, and you refuse to engage on the talk page, I am going to block you. Please take this time to make your case on Talk:Morena Baccarin and to read up on our edit warring policy. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Red-tailed hawk: They also removed this report, which I warned them about on their talk page -- just so you're aware. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 05:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

  ...that would explain the multiple edit conflicts I saw when posting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Emiya1980 reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Page protected)

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

User being reported: Emiya1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [247] - 05:31, 29 November 2024
2. [248] - 07:03, 29 November 2024
3. [249] - 07:15, 29 November 2024
4. [250] - 07:27, 29 November 2024

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [251] (i accidently signed this with the wrong username. copied and pasted a template to sign the edit but forgot to change the username)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [252]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [253]

Comments:

To the extent that I violated the 3 revert-rule, I admit to edit-warring. That being said, LilAhok is clearly involved in edit-warring as well.

In the dispute in question, I added the phrase "Long after the war's end" in order to better connect the concluding sentence with those that came before it. LilAhok reverted this change on the grounds that it was unnecessary. During the course of us going back and forth reverting each other, they argued that I bore the onus of obtaining consensus prior to including such material in the lede. I pointed out that another editor had edited the sentence so that it was prefaced with the phrase, "To this day" prior to LilAhok deleting said language. I subsequently restored this version of the article on the grounds that it was preferable alternative and said that the burden was now on them to obtain consensus before excluding such evidence seeing as how he was now in the minority on the matter. After said edit, LilAhok posted an warning against edit-warring tag to my page (while signing it under another editor's name) then opened a discussion on the talk page regarding our impasse before proceeding to revert me yet again notwithstanding my prior explanation to them. After I responded in kind on said page while reiterating my argument that he was in the minority, they responded by reporting me to this forum.

As a Wikipedia editor, properly picking my battles has been an issue that I have struggled with in the past but is one that I am working on in the interests of being a constructive member of this project. In this case, I lapsed by once again fighting fire with fire and to this I admit my fault. If I am to be punished, all that I ask is that LilAhok's actions likewise be subjected to the same scrutiny.Emiya1980 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add that Emiya1980 has not followed WP:CIV & WP:AVOIDYOU, and has been belligerent through their edits or comments:

1. [254] Instead of writing any disagreements the user may have with me on my talk page, user made accusations against me on another user's talk page, giving it the title "Problems with LilAhok". User alleged that my preferred version is grammatically inferior. (issue was taken to talk page. my views are presented there)

2. [255] In this edit, user stated, "Reverted changes to the first sentence. Regardless of what details you want to include (which is another issue altogether), there is no excuse for sloppy writing." user dismissed my "details" and belittled my writing.

nevertheless, 3RR was violated. LilAhok (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)\

I am curious though. Why did you sign your warning on my page as another editor? Emiya1980 (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Arguing that your writing is not up to the standards of a Wikipedia page is not a personal attack. That being said, your actions likewise constitute edit-warring even though you are technically within the bounds of the 3 revert rule. The warning you posted on my page makes that clear.

As for me not discussing the issue with you directly on your talk page, you were very dismissive the last time I tried to carry on a discussion with you about your edits to Hirohito. You have made it clear you are more interested in fighting me tooth-and-nail rather than trying to reach a consensus that is acceptable (if not preferable) to both parties. Frankly, that gets tiring after a while. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 2 days. Both of you broke 3RR, so technically you could both be blocked. LilAhok is at least attempting to engage on the article's talk page. Emiya1980, I have yet to see you discuss this matter on the talk page at all. I strongly encourage both of you to take a step back and cool off, then discuss on the talk page before editing the article again. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

User:72.49.25.113 reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Blocked one month)

Page: Jessica Kirkland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 72.49.25.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC) "True facts"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has just had a block of 7 days ended for repeatedly adding unsourced content to this BLP, and has immediately added the information again. User says they represent Kirkland's team. Many warnings on their Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month. Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

User:SassyDetective1999 reported by User:Thebiguglyalien (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Sarah Yorke Jackson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SassyDetective1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/1260075547

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1260235999
2. Special:Diff/1260300600
3. Special:Diff/1260300864
4. Special:Diff/1260308140

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1260116595

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1260088900

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1260310056

Comments:
Adding unsourced content, acknowledges they do not have a citation in their edit summaries. Similar behavior at Jane Irwin Harrison but hasn't violated the three revert rule there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked by Daniel Case, but SassyDetective1999's contributions seem so strange and hoax-y that I made the 24-hour block indefinite. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:85F:F083:4636:D005:C438:C941:2657 reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Declined)

Page: John Hanson (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:85F:F083:4636:D005:C438:C941:2657 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1260331869 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"
2. 01:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Nope"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mike Berry (singer)."
2. 04:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."
3. 04:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John Hanson (singer)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note user who made the report started edit-warring. A similar behaviour of theirs was also noticed at Joe Talbot article, with them making no attempt to reach a consensus at article's talk page and merely blind-reverting. 2A02:85F:F083:4636:D005:C438:C941:2657 (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I am going to note that there appears to be another Greek IP from the same ISP ("Vodafone-Panafon Hellenic Telecommunications Company SA") who had edited the page the day before, and whose edits were reverted by the reporter. But, even if this was the same as the reported IP, there wouldn't be a clear-cut WP:3RR violation here, and I'm inclined to simply decline this report with advice for both of you to take this to the talk page, where changes like this should be discussed when contested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Declined in light of the above. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:85F:F083:4636:D005:C438:C941:2657 reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: Declined)

Page: Mike Berry (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:85F:F083:4636:D005:C438:C941:2657 (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 04:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC) to 04:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 04:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1260332031 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"
   2. 04:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Partial self-rv."
2. 02:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mike Berry (singer)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note user who made the report started edit-warring. A similar behaviour of theirs was also noticed at Joe Talbot article, with them making no attempt to reach a consensus at article's talk page and merely blind-reverting.2A02:85F:F083:4636:D005:C438:C941:2657 (talk) 04:58, 30 November 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 such, this report is declined. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Cerium4B reported by User:Upd Edit (Result: Issue resolved)

Page: Shahi Jama Masjid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Cerium4B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1260237535 by Aliyiya5903 (talk): Please don’t vandalise this article, previously multiple users have reverted your edits."
2. 20:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Upd Edit (talk) to last revision by Cerium4B"
3. 19:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1260237535 by Aliyiya5903 (talk): Please refrain from disruptive editing Upd Edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 20:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring without participating in discussion at the talk page */ Reply"
3. 21:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring without participating in discussion at the talk page */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Sambhal Jama Masjid "/* Removal of sourced content */ Reply"

Comments:

Despite multiple requests, there is a total refusal to even cursorily participate at the talk page discussion.

In his last revert, Cerium noted "multiple [two] experienced editors" who reverted me: of them, one (Aliyiya5903) has 90 edits and didn't bother to come to the talk page (like Cerium) while the other (CipherRephic) has about 500 and mistakenly mass-rollbacked my edits (via RedWarn) on correctly spotting a MOS violation at my last edit. That I have been accused of "vandalism" by Cerium, I leave it to the judgement of administrators to decide if my sourced additions qualified such a label and deserved to be rollbacked. Upd Edit (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

After about fifteen minutes of this report, he has templated me to not edit war; never mind that I didn't revert him anymore. Unsurprisingly, he is yet to show up at the article talk page. I am requesting an indefinite block until he understands that t/p discussion is NOT an optional component while editing Wikipedia. Upd Edit (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Now, I have been reported to AIV in what is clearly a POINTy retaliation because I haven't edited/reverted anything in the meanwhile. Obviously, there continues to be crickets at the article talk page. Upd Edit (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

My content has been reinstated by an experienced editor. Thanks! Upd Edit (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Drisha herjee reported by User:Ratnahastin (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Ahir clans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:50, 1 December 2024
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC) to 07:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
   1. 07:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Clans */ check the link, these are valid sources and clearly state yaduvanshi ahir,,,, please stop the vandalism"
   2. 07:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC) "/* Dauwa */ admin said discuss, also you are usinr Raj era sources which are not reliable as per wikipedia policy"
3. 17:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Dauwa */ these are based on unreliable raj based sources"
4. Consecutive edits made from 02:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC) to 02:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
   1. 02:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "actually admins have made this edit, the sources are reliable,,,, university of chicago, JN university, london school of economics, OXFORD all are reliable sources,,, do not vandalise"
   2. 02:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "raj sources from 1900 is unreliable,,, put scholarly works only, do not indulge in vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "/* Introduction to contentious topics */ cmt"
2. 04:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ahir clans."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Constant edit warring by WP:NOTHERE caste SPA despite the warning. They are still edit warring despite being reported here [256] and has filed a retaliatory SPI report against me.- Ratnahastin (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)- Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Dympies reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: 2019 Balakot airstrike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1260608241 by AnomieBOT (talk): Matter already raised at talk page. F&f, you need to respond there. Foreign Policy itself says claim "appear" to be false citing two "anonymous" officials. Pentagon cornered itself from the report; so nothing is official. Not enough to give verdict in lead."
2. 17:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC) "Restored my last version, see talk page"
3. 15:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid, Query- by whom? As if there exists a universally accepted agency which give conclusive verdicts on such disputes! The journal itself sites a newspaper source"
4. 15:04, 1 December 2024 (UTC) "Removed template; my query remained unanswered for long. Replaced citation with a neutral wording."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I would perhaps have let 3RR slide, given that Dympies opened a talk page discussion, but the fourth revert is a bit too far given the history of warnings and sanctions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Opening a talk page discussion is good, continuing to revert afterwards isn't ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Dympies, you may be interested in the WP:DISCFAIL essay. One of the few helpful essays I've seen so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:6CB0:4AC7:2C32:8C45 et al. reported by User:NotCory (Result: /64 range blocked for 3 months)

Page: 16:9 aspect ratio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• 2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:6CB0:4AC7:2C32:8C45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:942E:E2E3:5BC1:D610 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:768D:22F1:E38B:C493 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:F8B5:3FB4:4179:DB06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [257] (2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:6CB0:4AC7:2C32:8C45)
2. [258] (2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:942E:E2E3:5BC1:D610)
3. [259] (2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:768D:22F1:E38B:C493)
4. [260] (2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:F8B5:3FB4:4179:DB06)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [261] (2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:F8B5:3FB4:4179:DB06)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [262] (2A02:3102:6809:FFF0:F8B5:3FB4:4179:DB06)

Comments:

This set of IPs persistently reverted my removal of the so-called "second iteration of ended fullscreen" table, which appears to be an unsourced list of what channels in each country that broadcasts in 16:9. This obviously falls in WP:NOTDIRECTORY and even with a loose criterion of "free-to-air and pay-TV channels", sourcing for channels that does would be difficult at best.

The first three IPs (as well as a few more in that range) also revert warred unpiping edits on Standard-definition television (latest attempt) and High-definition television (latest attempt), but as I'm not involved in editing and reverting for those pages, I'll have those that do to file on their own. — NotCory (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the /64 range for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Hujjat al-Umari reported by User:WikiEnthusiast1001 (Result: No violation)

Page: Family of Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hujjat al-Umari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [263]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [264]
2. [265]
3. [266]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [268] While I did not attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, I did warn them previously. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [269]

Comments:
The user is persistently disruptive, engaging in frequent edits and vandalism on the Family of Imran Khan. They justify removing the "Turkish Kurdistan origin" from the infobox by claiming, "This origin from Turkish Kurdistan is highly disputed and is only a theory of a certain author." However, where is this claim of it being "highly disputed" substantiated? The origin is explicitly mentioned in Peter Oborne's award-winning book about the family, Wounded Tiger. Furthermore, their claim that they are only removing the Turkish Kurdistan origin is misleading—they are also removing Tyrian from the "Alleged Children" section and creating a new section about Tyrian under Imran's children. This could potentially indicate a WP:NOTHERE situation. Also, this page has been vandalized in the past, as shown here, here, and here WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not remove the Khan family's supposed origin from Turkish Kurdistan from the article. It is still present at the 'Maternal family' subheading. As i said in my edit summary, these claims are only theories and not facts (as highlighted in the article itself), thus I removed the supposed origin from Turkish Kurdistan only from the infobox. Also, the book you highlighted, Wounded Tigers, is indeed a reliable sources, but I wish you read it's text clearly. Oborne says: "Burkis trace their history back for at least a thousand years". They believe they travelled from Turkish Kurdistan approximately eight hundred years ago", implying that it's the Burkis' folk belief and not confirmed by other sources. Secondly, Tyrian Jade is Khan's actual daughter per the sources given. The Californian court confirmed Tyrian to be Khan's daughter and in 2004, Khan himself welcomed Tyrian into his family per the sources. I was checking the article's history and found something very interesting. Tyrian was actually counted as Khan's daughter in the [270] version before WikiEnthusiast1001's edit. On 2 January 2024, [271] WikiEnthusiast1001's changed the Tyrian part without any discussion. WikiEnthusiast1001 was also reverted when they tried to [272] change the Tyrian part in the Imran Khan article. It seems quite clear here who is actually committing vandalism here. Hujjat al-Umari (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I wish you would read my words more carefully. I never claimed you removed it from the article. Re-read what I said: you didn't remove it from the infobox for the "folk belief" reason. Your edit summary states, "This origin from Turkish Kurdistan is highly disputed and is only a theory of a certain author." Where is the source for "highly disputed"? You claim it's a theory of the author, but it literally says the family believes it, not the author. This is dishonest. The California court did not conduct a DNA test; it issued a default judgment. Also, Maury Povich welcomed his adoptive son Matthew Jay Povich into his family, that does not make him his biological child. Nor has Khan ever stated that he adopted Tyrian. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't need a source for Turkish Kurdistan being "highly disputed"; the article itself reflects this: "There are various theories about the origins of the Burkis, including one which states that they migrated from Turkish Kurdistan over at least eight centuries ago, and settled in the mountains of Kaniguram.[71] Another theory, as discussed by Robert Leech (1838), ascribes a "Farsiwan" or "Tajik" origin with ancestry from Yemen, from whence they arrived in Afghanistan and were later brought to India along with the army of Mehmood Ghaznavi.", clearly implying that there are several theories about the origin and neither of them is confirmed. And that I claimed it's the theory of the author, I apologize, I did not correctly checked it at the time, although I later replied in this edit warring saying it's a folk belief of the Burkis. If you do wish to add Turkish Kurdistan back, then add these other theories of Tajik origin or Yemeni ancestry. Secondly, I analyzed your changes to the Tyrian White part. You removed "She [Tyrian] was noted for her resemblance to Khan" in the version before your edit that was sourced by Piers Morgan's book, The Insider: The Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade, without giving any explanation? Nevertheless, I'm fine with adding Tyrian back in the alleged children, though you should avoid a pro-Khan stance here. This really did not needed an edit warring. Hujjat al-Umari (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have added a CTOPS notice (IPA even though the above discussion suggests KURD, and of course BLP also applies) to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Ct180410 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable; partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Sabrina Carpenter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ct180410 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC) "no one is discussing on the talk page, at all! therefore we should go back tk what is supported by the songwriting section in the article."
2. 09:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC) "singer-songwriter is backed up by article content! Please bring up recent sources proving otherwise in talk page"
3. 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC) "she does not need sole credits on a whole song a la speak now to be a singer songwriter. She works on music, she works on lyrics, she undeniably sings. per talk page- period"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sabrina Carpenter."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edits highlighted in this report are only some of them. Twinkle didn't bring up more for some reason. However, this has been going since at least November 28. See article history. User refuses to accept that they currently do not have WP:CONSENSUS for their changes. See also Songwriter status section on article talk page. Amaury • 00:21, 3 December 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: That's why I said to look at the page history as well. For some reason, Twinkle wouldn't load more diffs. This has been going on since November 28, with the initial edit here. Subsequent reintroduction of the disputed content: [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281]. That's nine reversions/restorations of disputed content, plus the three diffs above. 12 reverts total! Amaury • 01:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, declining this just because there haven't been more than 3 reverts in the last 24 hours sends the wrong message, both to the edit warrior and the reporter, the former of whom had even referred to "IAR" as justification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have also left a CTOPS notice on the talk page as the article is semi-protected already for at least the next 3 years. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MolAnneFinnBall567 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

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

User being reported: MolAnneFinnBall567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "I’ve had enough of this nonsense"
2. 07:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 06:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 14:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 01:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Antz."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:MolAnneFinnBall567#WP:FILMNAV

Comments:

Also editing as Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C300:862F::/64 with 2 reverts while logged out, Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

User:76.88.55.135 reported by User:Fma12 (Result: Declined)

Page: RIMAC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.88.55.135 (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (none provided)

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

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

Comments:

Reverted all my edits made on November 30, alleging "spelling mistakes". I tried to talk to him explaining that changes involved not only spelling but other modifications, but he erased my message at his talk page. He also refuses to open a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fma12 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

My reply. I am user 76.88.55.135 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.55.135 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Please don't assume my pronouns are he/him. I am the IP user. Not sure how to reply here. The user made an edit filled with non-constructive and spelling error ridden changes. Various typos, formatting issues, etc. Then insists on maintaining it even after a request for an explanation of the reversion was given. User expects others to clean up after themself. Changed California to CA unnecessarily, listed UC San Diego incorrectly per its style guide, (it is never "University of California, SD") "Abbreviated" was spelled wrong. Mistakes to the links had brackets in text from source editor. Just to name a few mistakes in the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.55.135 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, my edits were completely constructive and in good faith. They include upading the official website, a commons template addition, images alignment, paramethers added to the infobox, among others. But this anon editor just erased them all, instead of fixing the spelling mistakes he seems to be so worried about.

I don't expect other "clean up" mistakes as he wrongly says, I just expect edits not to be completely reverted when some of the changes are useful. Furthermore, I expect this userdoes not remove all the lines I wrote on his talk page in search of consensus. This user seems to act in a capricious manner, unwilling to reach an agreement or, at least, be able to discuss. Fma12 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the large amount of mistakes I am not confident that other parts of the edit were constructive, if someone else wants to align images and add "paramethers", they can. You can't expect an edit to not be reverted when a large part of it consists of mistakes, then tell others to fix them because some of the edit was constructive. You sent me a message in broken English via my talk page. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, they are not just "spelling mistakes" you made. It is in bad faith to claim that they are minor edits that could be made to an otherwise "constructive" edit, when in fact the edit is riddled with offenses. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is not "constructive" at all is your attitude. I'm not a native English speaker and of course I can commit mistakes but at least, I can make myself understood in another language, I doubt you can write one word in Spanish without using a translator. You insist on "mistakes" which you have not specified until now. Writing "University of California, SD" is a so serious mistake to revert an entire list of changes? That's what you're referring about?

You are talking about "offenses", do you read what you state? "offensive" is your behaviour, trying to disqualify me as editor just because my native language is not English. That sounds so ridiculous. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Civility, that probably fix your manners and teach you a bit of respect. Fma12 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I am half Mexican and have lived in Tijuana... Bringing up only "University of California, SD" is a cherry picking fallacy. That is one of the many parts of the edit that was non-constructive. Claiming that that is the serious mistake that made me revert "an entire list of changes" is just misleading. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It simply comes down to the fact that you made an edit filled with egregious mistakes, and are upset that it got reverted. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you are confused. I'm not upset because of the reversion, in fact I'm not even upset. It was me who decided to stop with this non-sense reverting because you had refused to discuss blanking your talk page so you did not leave me another option.

You have been claiming I did "many non-constructive edits" but the only part you cited is University of California, SD (which I don't consider a so serious error, unlike you). Now, could you please detail the "eggregious mistakes" in my edits? Until now, You wrote a lot without saying anything concrete. At least, try to find a justification to your reversions and make this discussion more interesting. Fma12 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, you reverted an edit that updated the official website from this to this (the current website), among other disruptions. Do you think this is a "constructive" edit? Fma12 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I already listed multiple mistakes in your edit here and on the article's page. Now that is twice you have cherry picked that one. Your edits are vandalism to me given how the page appeared after your edits, which is why I believe immediate reversions were warranted. Thank you for catching that. I'm happy to revert my own edits when someone points out a mistake. Goodbye. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, you just pointed out a mistake in your own edit LOL. The first is the home page for UCSD Recreation. You tried to change it to an essay article about LionTree Arena, an arena WITHIN the complex that the article is about. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it was not a mistake, I know the LionTree is a basketball arena, but the website includes description of all the facilities there. You not only could justify your reversions, but also ruined several important changes like the one I described above.

And finally: before talking about "vandalism", check out what the term means so the only "vandalic", disruptive, and non-collaborative edits have been yours, not mine.

I hope an admin take the best decission. Fma12 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope an admin makes the best decision as well. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Fma12, why Special:Diff/1261032897? Specific errors had been pointed out and you restored them? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

76.88.55.135, the editing policy's section about trying to fix problems and the policy against edit warring apply even when reverting the introduction of errors unless they're obvious vandalism, and the edits you have reverted are not vandalism, so you have edit warred. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Both, the content removed in Special:Diff/1261055417 as well as the edit summary of the removal are uncivil. It is also inappropriate to respond to uncivil remarks with "that probably fix your manners and teach you a bit of respect", as such advice is highly unlikely to lead to the allegedly intended result.

If your interactions continue to look like this, they will probably lead to a block sooner or later, not for edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I have been in WP for 18 years and that kind of interactions with other editors were very few. That reply came after some unappropriate coments that the anon IP left on the edit summary, even referring to my English writting, which was totally unnecessary. I tried to reach a consensus but he erased all the messages I left on his talk. I am anything but uncivil, but I don't like to deal with this kind of users, even less when they are anonymous. Fma12 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Fma12, you're not required to deal with anyone (WP:DISENGAGE, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and in case someone persistently messages you after a request not to, WP:Harassment). However, you chose to interact with this person by reverting article content to a state that had been pointed out to you as containing errors. That is not really an option. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i'll keep that in mind for future occssions. I do not feel comfortable in this kind of discusions so I prefer to focus on editing articles. Fma12 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

User:2A01:CB05:82B1:2100:454F:E599:F903:5FA8 reported by User:Nswix (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: List of undefeated mixed martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A01:CB05:82B1:2100:454F:E599:F903:5FA8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "EVEN ON THE PFL SITE IT'S WRITTEN 20-0 !!! Stop being stupid and open your eyes. You are nobody in MMA to be able to claim that Musaev is in 18-0 and not in 20-0 ... Really pathetic ..."
2. 18:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "It's clearly written 20-0 on tapology with real evidence for the 2 fights in addition. But the reality is that you don't like Musaev and prefer to use a much less reliable internet site like Sherdog. You have no arguments to prove that Sherdog is a better website than Tapology but since you don't want to admit that you're wrong you will continue to re-edit the page ... This is pathetic"
3. 17:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "I think Musav haters don't want to use Tapology ... If you have REAL arguments for using sherdog, please let's debate in "Talk""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */"
3. 18:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
4. 19:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Personal attacks, 3RR. Nswix (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• whoops? Rangblocked the /64 for 1 week.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

User:112.215.154.207 reported by User:The Kip (Result: blocked 6 months)

Page: Portal:Current events/2024 December 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 112.215.154.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2
2. 3
3. 4
4. 5
5. 6
6. 7
7. 8, at same time as 3RR warning
8. 9

All are within the last half-hour or so, and I somewhat rushed this report, so my bad for no timestamps.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A - WP:ECR applies to this content, meaning the IP isn't even allowed to be making these edits in the first place. I'd already warned them with the CTOP alert and they kept going.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1

Comments:
The Kip ^(contribs) 03:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I've already rangeblocked; this is the same LTA on Indonesian IPs that's been edit-warring out all mention of genocide from the P:CE pages for a couple years now. I'm not decided whether it's better or worse that he's on little /23s and /24s now instead of the /12 he was on before. —Cryptic 06:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)