Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive460

User:Sakiv reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Declined)

Page: 2001–02 RCD Mallorca season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2003–04 VfL Osnabrück season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sakiv (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Sakiv#Uncited material

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:Sakiv#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Comments:
While this is not a violation of 3RR, I have been instructed to report editors here who continue to re-insert uncited material after its been deleted. I include the last two examples above to show that this editor finally understood the issue and provided a source for the second article, but the first article still has been re-added without sourcing, (although an additional source was added).

I don't know what to tell you frankly.--Sakiv (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

In the same case, I can report you for emptying entire articles instead of nominating them for deletion or tagging them with tags like more citations needed. This should not be so hard. Match schedule from another article with no sources at all.--Sakiv (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Declined This isn't quite like the recent issue with radio, where the uncited material in question was in an article about a core subject and had been there for years before an editor removed it, provoking risible claims of disruption and edit warring on the grounds that if the community had not acted to find sources for it lo these many years, then there was a consensus to leave it unsourced as "uncontroversial". Here the articles are new and not about core subjects, and as the reporter concedes, facially this does not violate 3RR.

All the same, that's a lot of material to put into an article with such minimal citation. Sakiv, would you be open to moving these into draft- or userspace while you work on getting them more adequately cited? That's worked for me on quite a few articles where I have needed a lot of citations and wouldn't want to expose to drive-by tagging in mainspace. I know, I know, you could say that there's a lot of other soccer-season articles that sit in mainspace with minimal or no citation. But that's OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and those articles aren't being reported here as the subject of edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your detailed response. So are you going to remove the unsourced material from the article? I do not want to get in difficulty or accused of edit-warring, but neither should the unsourced material remain as per WP:BURDEN, which is policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, to be clear, the articles generally consist of tables and templates (i.e. football box). So the article may seem lacking in sources, but that is inaccurate. First the matches were all included in the first BDFutbol reference and that's what I did in the last edit. Secondly, the article is still under development.--Sakiv (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well I must say the sources I saw looked mostly like a database and are sure not an RS. One on a transfer by the BBC. The article has almost no prose, its more like a database fan page. It is informative, in that case, there is no doubt, but it is not verifiable as there are no sources and the few there are, are databases. The question is more, is this allowed, is it this what we want wikipedia to be? If @Sakiv wants to still work on it, I suggest you work on it in draft space.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Questions about whether BDFutbol is an RS should be taken up at RSN if they haven't been already. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

If the matches are all included in the first reference, that reference should be there as well as at the beginning of the article. It isn't too hard to do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

They're not, which is why I removed them. If an article is sourced, yet lacks footnotes, it would be tagged that way. Or at least I try to. This is not that case. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You know, nothing's stopping you from moving it into draft space yourself. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, draftified after having tried and failed to source some info while double checking the source of La Liga which meant to source info from the season 2001/2002 but was on games from the season 2022/2023...Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Seepsimon reported by User: Ayaltimo (Result: Stale)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff warnings by other user's on Seepsimon's talk page: [12]

Comments:This user lies and makes a bad revert by calling the UN estimation "Reverted after vandalism. Unsourced contents" The user has been called out by another user for making bad reverts. The user still decides to engage in an edit-war with two users and has broken the 3rd policy. Ayaltimo 02:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ayaltimo You are so smart enough. You are the one who is vandalizing, and at the same time you are the one who is reporting me here. You are removing the most reliable sources and adding poor unrelated sources to Somalis inorder to write what you wants. How many reliable sources you have removed at once there, it isn't one nor two but more reliable sources. I didn't add or remove anything. I only reverted the last reliable source you have removed before and this isn't vandalism or bad revert Please stop making violation on the wikipedia page. Plus don't take as evidence my mistakes that I have made when I was new to wikipedia. Now I am advanced wiki editor. I am always ready to respect the wikipedia rules and law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seepsimon (talk • contribs) 05:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

First you claim I've provided an unsourced content then you change your mind and say it is a poor unrelated source? Please explain to me how the Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division from the United Nations is unreliable? That is a verified website owned by the United Nation. It provides reliable population estimations which is related to the population section which I updated from. Again, you're lying and as for your other lie that I removed many sources. I simply removed two references to provide an update census which also includes Somaliland. I hope the admins can see what is going on here and take action. Ayaltimo 09:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Stale. See also WP:ANI#Disruptive User.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Varoon2542 reported by User:116.71.160.23 (Result: No violation)

Page: Religion in Mauritius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Varoon2542 (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]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

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: [17]

Comments:
He is habitual edit warrior. He had warnings from other editors on his talk page. Other editors also try to reason but he doesn't listen.

Comments:
Hello Blaze Wolf. The complaint is being made by 116.71.160.23. It seems to me that 116.71.160.23 is just a single editor hopping IPs. Other unidentified users include 116.71.190.39, 103.255.7.58 has already been blocked, 39.50.63.26 has just been created. I find it a bit rich that unidentified editors who don't even have a user page are complaining against me. The only identified one is Satrar. I've already sought arbitration for what I feel is hounding. ZLEA can confirm. I'm also keen on settling this issue. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's possible it's one person. Regardless I would prefer to not get involved in this. I simply fixed the header and gave you the required ANEW notice on your talk page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Muruganadimai reported by User:Extorc (Result: 1 week block)

Pages:

• Rajendra Chola I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Chola dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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

Previous version reverted to: [18][19]

Diffs of the user's reverts in last 24 hours

Chola dynasty

1. 14:34, 6 October 2022
2. 15:03, 6 October 2022‎
3. 20:39, 6 Ocotber 2022
4. 21:11, 6 October 2022
5. 21:47, 6 October 2022‎

Rajendra Chola I

1. 14:28, 6 October 2022
2. 14:47, 6 October 2022
3. 15:06, 6 October 2022‎
4. 20:35, 6 October 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[22]

Comments:

Relentless edit warrior, avoiding communication. Also terming every single opposing edit as "vandalism".[23][24][25][26] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. >>> Extorc.talk 22:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Totally untrue. I'm trying to maintain the [[WP:STATUSQUO]]. The matter is in discussion but the editor Exorc.talk is relently trying to keep the narrative on his side on the article without engaging in a discussion. Let us reach a conscience in the talk page Talk:Rajendra Chola I. Muruganadimai (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's few more details.

In the page Chola dynasty I added Shivism under the religion section of the template with scholarly citations which mentions that Cholas were follower of Saivam(Saiva Siddhanta) religion. A user named FofS&E changed the cited content: So i had to undo it and explained him of the citations. I only tried to maintain [[WP:STATUSQUO]]. The user and I are having a discussion in the Talk page Talk:Rajendra Chola I and nobody have reached a conscience. Extorc.talk throwed all kind of warning at me at his disposal and did disruptive editing even after explaining things to him clearly. While this issue is in discussion Extorc.talk( the user who reported me here) added a citation from no where to change the narrative (While things are still being discussed) to his side while giving no respect to [[WP:STATUSQUO]] policies.

So no I did not engage in edit wars or disruptive editing. I was merely trying to maintain the status quo and protect the cited contents while also engaging in discussions in the Talk section. Muruganadimai (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• You are putting unsourced information as you already admit and made reverts even after this report. On talk page you said "Give me a week time to post a detailed supporting arguments on this. Until then please maintain status quo",[27] but accusing others of vandalism when they are using sourced information. You do seem WP:NOTHERE. 103.249.233.126 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's a sourced information. This citations are scholarly references. Ah "give me a week time is for discussion" where between me and a username FofS&E. I need time to respond with more details. He was the one who started the discussion and we are discussing weather Cholas were shaivites or not. He needs more information on this and I'm willing to provide him that. Please read our discussion before you jump into conclusion and manipulate your words here about what's being discussed.

  Wikipedia Discussions should last more than a week at least and you cannot close it without a conscience. Until the you maintain Status Quo which is Chola's and the empires religion is Shaivism. Muruganadimai (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You claim you have citations but you need a week to produce them. You really need a block until you grasp how things are done here. Currently, you are just refusing to listen. 103.249.233.126 (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are you in such hurry to change it that favours your narrative? Do you know the wikipedia policy that discussions should go more than a week? You want me to block me and stop me from having a constructive discussion while in fact you are the one who involved in disruptive editing and not maintaining status quo. Muruganadimai (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• It seems to me that User:Muruganadimai should be blocked for edit warring. He made 24 edits today (October 6) and the majority of those edits were either reverting others or were reverted by other editors. If you spend all your time reverting that could be a sign you aren't trying very hard to reach agreement. WP:NOT3RR does not make any allowance for edits intended to maintain the 'status quo' whatever that may be. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 week. Some of their edits were way past 3RR and when you are reverting multiple different editors that is usually a sign that there is a problem. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Ejacobs8990 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Warned)

Page: Krista Varady (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ejacobs8990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [34] [35]

Comments:

• Ejacobs is an inexperienced WP:SPA who created the article Krista Varady and probably has a WP:COI. At the other end of the spectrum, Bon courage is a very experienced editor who decided that much of the material in the article was inappropriate for different reasons (I'm not going into the merits of the content dispute) and removed it. The present state of the article is Bc's version. Ejacobs has violated WP:3RR, but principally because another editor has reverted them twice believing that the burden is on Ejacobs to justify their "massive changes" and gain consensus, when it is really the other way around. In the discussion about the changes, which has occurred mostly on Ejacobs's Talk page, Bc has been dismissive, and Ejacobs (foolishly) has attacked Bc calling them "sexist". Some of the points I've made here have been highlighted by ARoseWolf in the discussion on Ejacobs's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Ejacobs8990 is warned for edit warring at Krista Varady and for making personal attacks against other editors. ("What you are doing is sexist. I am reporting your behavior at many levels."). When others oppose your article changes you should not leap to accuse them of bad faith. Wikipedia gets many promotional submissions and it takes a bit of time for a new editor to understand how new material is negotiated here. If you can't reach agreement, consider the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Noah526330 reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Gautama Buddha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noah526330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]
6. [42]
7. [43]
8. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Aoidh#Who are you?

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

Comments:
Diffs 4–7 show that they violated 3RR, but the others have been added to show that this has been ongoing. Despite being reverted by multiple editors they continue to edit war to their preferred version. As I explained to the editor on my talk page, the current wording is the result of a consensus (here) and that if they want to change it, they should discuss it on the article's talk page, and that continuing to edit war would result in being reported. Their response was to continue to edit war. - Aoidh (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I added diff 8 above, as they continue to edit-war even after being notified of this discussion (which they did see). - Aoidh (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:MikaelEmanuelsson reported by User:Iaof2017 (Result: Declined)

Page: Bebe Rexha discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MikaelEmanuelsson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48] User's IP
2. [49] Main
3. [50] Main
4. [51] Second or third account

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [54]

Comments:

The reported user, along with his other accounts, is repeatedly removing sourced content (8,393 characters) without legitimate reasons. He started with his IP [55], then with his account [56][57] and is currently continuing with his (second or third) account [58][59]. He has a history of edit warring and disruptive editing across other discography-related topics, as for instance with his other account @Helptottt. According to his statement on the article's talk page [60], I assume that it makes no sense to lead a discussion because he "will keep reverting [my] edits". Both also have the same insulting manner. Iaof2017 (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Declined. The proper venue for alleging sock puppetry is WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Despite that, the user is still violating the three-revert rule Bbb23. Iaof2017 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
    • They reverted twice on October 5 - that's it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Magnatyrannus reported by User:116.71.10.181 (Result: Nominator blocked for disruptive editing)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:
Respected admins I'm trying to add a reliable reference in the article Nayyara Noor but this user is reverting again and again by calling me a sock. Please keep in mind that he remained block for edit war and sock puppetry

This IP has been using multiple other IPs to edit war, so this thread is bogus. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is also another case of a user to joe job me. Also, FYI, the page has been semi-protected to prevent further disruptive editing. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Respected admins! This user has reverted edits more than 4 times and didn't discuss it first on the talk page though I tried my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.10.181 (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:B1958B reported by User:Zamekrizeni (Result: p-block one week both)

Page: Johan Roijakkers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: B1958B (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. 1
2. 2
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:
B1958B edited the article Johan Roijakkers. I removed unsourced content and made corrections (spelling, grammar, links) which the user keeps reverting. I asked to add additional sources which has been done in one case, while other content remains unsourced-

@Zamekrizeni: This looks like a content dispute. You and B1958B need to sort it out on the talk page. I hope you can do it willingly, rather than needing to have an admin protect the article while you do. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am sure we can. I am working in the field of basketball, I know all this information very and added many sources and will add more. B1958B (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred going through the revisions and reverts it seems that @Zamekrizeni has attempted to use the talk page but the other user has continued to revert the changes. might be a case of Wikipedia:NOTHERE Td^she/her 17:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thedefender35: I'm not seeing that at all, because there are some constructive edits in the mix, like fixing the name of the competition. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes I changed the name of the competition, it is called EasyCredit BBL. I don't know @Zamekrizeni why keeps changing back these things ! B1958B (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred the user @Zamekrizeni said this 2 times after making edits "User talk:B1958B" Td^she/her 17:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred both users seem to be reaching a census about how to change the page might be worth to close? Td^she/her 17:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week (p-block) both. Zamekrizeni is at 7RR, B1958B is at 9RR, something has to give. El_C 18:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Justdad78 reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Justdad78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. [61] (for reverts 1 and 2)
2. [62] (for revert 3)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [68]

Comments:

While I usually wait until an editor has gone past the 3RR bright line before filing here, I decided to take a preventative approach this time because the editor's three reverts so far were made in less than two hours, because they were made by an account with no edits outside of this topic, because the third revert was made well after the editor received the 3RR notice, and because the editor seems to believe that revert-warring when faced with the policy-based opposition of three other editors is a fine thing to do. I don't believe the community is quite so accepting of marching quickly up to the bright line, and in any event further disruption should be prevented if possible, in my view. Newimpartial (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
  • A new account, Lapelyoke, took over precisely where the blocked account left off. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Davide King reported by User:Est. 2021 (Result: No action)

Page: Giorgia Meloni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davide King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Too many, at least 35 intermediate edits: link

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Giorgia Meloni#Immigration

Comments:
In addition, the user falsely accused me of deleting sources three times, despite I had kept all the refs. He insisted on the fact my version of the page has -525 characters, but it's all about wording and punctuation, I removed no paragraph nor reference, you can check. On the other hand, he deleted paragraphs and references multiple times. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I literally warned you both about edit warring EvergreenFir (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: As I already said, I'm actually the user who started the Talk:Giorgia Meloni#Immigration before the edit war, and I'm the user who reported this edit war to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Giorgia Meloni (again) before getting to this critic point. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RR is a bright line, even if you do the correct things in addition. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I just warned them again seeing it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Not blocked As discussion is taking place on the talk page, and there have been no reverts (indeed, only one edit) to the article today, I think we should let things work out there, with the caveat that if edit-warring resumes there will be blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf reported by User:103.141.102.6 (Result: Declined)

Page: Dutch Cape Colony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vif12vf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:Old revision of Dutch Cape Colony

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:59, 24 September 2022‎
2. 15:31, 25 September 2022‎
3. 02:18, 26 September 2022‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Vif12vf#Dutch Cape Colony

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [69]

Comments:

The user used no edit summaries in reversion, making it difficult to ascertain their disagreement. After the third reversion, they posted a vandalism block warning on my talk page. The user has thus far demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion either on the article talk page as requested or on their talk page where the request was posted. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A summary of my main attempted contributions to the infobox are as follows:

• Adding the anthem used across VOC colonies of the time.
• Changing the historical era to something more relevant.
• Removing unused fields and whitespace.

103.141.102.6 (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Adding more specificity to the list of religions.
• Adding the type of government.

103.141.102.6 (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Declined, per the discussion cited as an attempt to resolve dispute. The IP cannot litigate their way to their preferred version via a noticeboard posting. If there is a legitimate content dispute, the IP needs to initiate discussion at the article's talk page and get consensus there. —C.Fred (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Litigation to get a "preferred version" is not the intent, resolution is. A failed attempt has already been made to initiate discussion as per the above notes and the dispute has reached a stalemate. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where you have edited the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Please refer above link under Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I can copy the contents of the discussion for formality's sake, if you require. 101.98.249.78 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I did; it is not a link to the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is precisely what I said. Since you have not accepted my offer to transfer a copy of the discussion to the article's talk page, your reply leads me to conclude that the content of the discussion is insufficient on my part. If that is correct, then please explain on what could be further added to what has been said. 101.98.249.78 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in the thread above did you directly suggest that the user talk conversation be transferred to article talk. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I don't know how I could be more direct than "I can copy the contents of the discussion for formality's sake, if you require." Regardless of how, the degree of my directness is not entirely relevant, is it? Now that I know that you know what I meant, do you want a transfer after all, or do you have another suggestion? 103.141.102.6 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we please remove the case result until it the case is fully resolved, otherwise it could get procedurally archived? 101.98.249.78 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The case is resolved. I see no need for administrative action at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean , what has been resolved? The issue I came to have resolved, which is my inability to make contributions due to editing waring by another user, is still ongoing. What have you changed? 101.98.249.78 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

In the three days since you filed the case, you have made no attempts to discuss the matter anywhere but here. I just verified that there is no protection applied to Talk:Dutch Cape Colony, so nothing prevents you from posting there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That is correct because as far as I am concerned, I already made an unsuccessful attempt at discussion prior to this filing, albeit on the user in question's talk page, and have no reason to believe that continuing the discussion on either the article's or the user's talk page will serve any further purpose without mediation. (I never intended to discuss the article on their talk page, it just turned out in that way.) 103.141.102.6 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Were I to continue, what about the matter would you have me discuss in any event, that hasn't already been covered on their talk page already? 103.141.102.6 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not practical to expect article editors to read discussion at a user's talk page. Discussion about editing an article should be at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There you go - although it's not obvious to me how much doing so will improve practicality in this situation, I've copied it over as you've implied. 103.141.102.6 (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Bechtcha000 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

User being reported: Bechtcha000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: Cast gets listed in credit order."
2. 02:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 01:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "I changed the order, so this editing is not disruptive."
4. 00:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits: Misordered cast"
5. 03:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 03:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC) to 03:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
   1. 03:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
   2. 03:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There was a warning sent to their talk page, but they removed it, indicating that they might refuse to cooperate. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

They also removed the notice of AN3 discussion, further proving my point. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Still edit warring after the report was issued. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

User:85.238.103.38 reported by User:Politanvm (Result: rangeblocked 1mo)

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

User being reported: 85.238.103.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114966260 by Politanvm (talk) it's clear working email - you can try to send something there."
2. 05:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114963516 by Izno (talk) I can do like you too. WP:NOT"
3. 04:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114961520 by Izno (talk) please read mentioned template website fieid description first. We can discuss only after WP:NOT violation will be removed, which exactly I do."
4. 04:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "Initially that's clear email - you can send email there and it will be delivered. Template:Cite web#TemplateData allows using wikilinking there, so I see it as consensus."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC) on User talk:85.238.103.38 "Warning: Three-revert rule on Godville."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user is making some helpful edits, but has been overzealous in removing email addresses even when they are direct quotes, citation titles, or non-emails that have a similar format. Many users have tried to talk to IP about their editing, with no success. Politanvm ^talk 06:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Reporter definitely lied, as:

1. discussion had place with only editor who was first reverted my reported edit had place and who did not revert my edit anymore.
2. Reporter himself did not even try to discuss reported edit - and just continued edit warring of previous editor to lead the situation to WP:EW application. As it was told at above mentioned discussion real emails at articles clearly violate WP:NOT and reporter just returned violation despite was informed it have place there ([70], [71], etc. previously). So probably question here is what have more priority - WP:NOT or WP:EW and not manually created by 2 registered users "3-reverts" edit warring itself. 85.238.103.38 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 month at the /19 based on past warnings and discussion. See Special:Diff/1115003660. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Havsjö reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

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

Comments:
User "Beyond My Ken" attempts to change long-standing (Feb 2020[80]- Sep 2022[81]) version of page without discussion. However, a civil discussion has since been opened on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Francoist_Spain#%22Fascist%22? --Havsjö (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to note, that the version I reverted to was the very long-standing version prior to February 2020, and that Hasvjo continued to revert even after I opened the discussion and invited him (on his talk page) to make his objections known there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Another day, and Hasvjo makes another revert of the same material [82], which was restored by another editor (not me). Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article to encourage continued discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:50.81.166.34 reported by User:Chip3004 (Result: Page protected; user blocked 72 hours)

Page: Kent Desormeaux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 50.81.166.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114921469 by Jlvsclrk (talk)"
2. 23:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114920892 by Jlvsclrk (talk)"
3. 23:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114911792 by Jlvsclrk (talk)"
4. 21:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114897683 by Jlvsclrk (talk)"
5. 20:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114889792 by Jlvsclrk (talk) undoing edits cause equibase is the official database and I refuse to believe they made 8 mistakes and wrote Kent down as jockey, other info such as 10 weeks in Japan is recorded by blood horse, so is the 597 actually being record"
6. 18:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114856977 by Jlvsclrk (talk) the so called evidence on YouTube would have tripped the horse to be able to knock the felt off the helmet, he just ran on. Ever heard of fake or edited footage or special effect? Ever heard of record keeping of races? They have record of changes made to those cards. UPI said big brown was trying to become 13th triple crown winner. These things can’t even get the numbers correct half the time."
7. 12:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1114752954 by Jlvsclrk (talk) user removing up to date sources. As well as most reliable sources such as equibase. Which shows he fell. But same day and following day he raced. It contains info that late scratches occurred and Kent would have been taken off"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kent Desormeaux."
2. 03:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "/* October 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC) "/* 598 */ Reply"

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

Comments:

Page protected indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Tamilpadai reported by User:Extorc (Result: Indeffed as a sock)

Page:

• Chola dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts in last 24 hours

1. 17:50, 8 October 2022‎
2. 21:02, 8 October 2022‎
3. 05:25, 9 October 2022
4. 06:23, 9 October 2022‎

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]

Comments:

Unresponsive relentless edit warrior marking edits as minor. >>> Extorc.talk 07:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's my response:

All i did was trying to maintain WP: Status quo.

On 11:30, 5 October 2022‎: four reliable sources was cited to the religion section of the info box stating Shivaism was the religion of Cholas instead of un cited hinduism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1114217676

On 14:59, 6 October 2022‎ user FoS&E vandalized the cited content (that is the religion is Shivaism) to Hinduism. Here's the four citations says the religion is Shivaism and the user edit the cited content and made it Hinduism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1114448688

On 20:09, 6 October 2022‎ user Extorc undid the edits by the other users who were trying to maintain the Status Quo(Shivaism as the religion in the article). Extorc argument was that he/she is maintaing the WP:STATUSQUO but his/her claim is untrue as the Status quo should be Religion as Shivaism rather Hinduism.

After clearly explaining him/her about the status quo they still disrupted the cited contents by adding a new source to favor his/her POV or narrative. The user Extorc did not discuss before adding a citation(that favours Hinduism) agints four citations that clearly suggest that Chola dynasty followed Saiva Religion.

On 20:15, 6 October 2022‎ Extorc went on to add new source to an already disputed content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1114497705

The status quo is cited content Shivaism as religion and not united Hinduism. So i was trying to maintain WP: STATUSQUO and had to undo those who did not follow it even after explaining it to them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1114973585

The four out of the Five citations support the religion of chola dynasty as Shivaism. Yes, I'm willing to engage in discussion but they have to change it back to Shivaism as it is the Status quo. Tamilpadai (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's my points and discussion about issue at the Chola Dynasty Talk page. : Talk:Chola dynasty Tamilpadai (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• This user has made fifth revert now. >>> Extorc.talk 15:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Why so desperate to block me?

  Yes, i did the fifth edit and it was not a revert. A user name named Chennai Super Kings Lover added questionable youtube and recent media sources to add Islam to the list of religion of Chola dynasty. I simply protected the page from dubious citations and in fact restored it to your last version until discussions conclude.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1115020311

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chola_dynasty&oldid=1115019222 Tamilpadai (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  While also constructively engaging in Discussions: Talk:Chola dynasty

  Thank you. Tamilpadai (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Dreamy Jazz as a sock. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:EditorA2022 reported by User:Rsjaffe (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Draft:Euro-Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: EditorA2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 18:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 18:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 18:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC) "Correção idioma"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Draft:Euro-Collins."
2. 18:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on draft:Euro-Collins."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User:84.65.78.92 reported by User:88.200.198.159 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page:

• 8.8 cm SK L/45 naval gun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 8.8 cm SK C/35 naval gun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• German minelayer Hansestadt Danzig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 84.65.78.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 8.8 cm SK L/45 naval gun
• 8.8 cm SK C/35 naval gun
• German minelayer Hansestadt Danzig

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 8.8 cm SK L/45 naval gun:
  1. [88] ""
  2. [89] ""
  3. [90] "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
  4. [91] "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
• 8.8 cm SK C/35 naval gun:
  1. [92] ""
  2. [93] ""
  3. [94] "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
  4. [95] "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
• German minelayer Hansestadt Danzig:
  1. [96] ""
  2. [97] ""
  3. [98] "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"
  4. [99] "Warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 8.8 cm SK L/45 naval gun:

1. [100]

• 8.8 cm SK C/35 naval gun:
  1. [101]

• German minelayer Hansestadt Danzig:
  1. [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103] & [104] & [105] → [106]

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

Comments:
--88.200.198.159 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I see that the diff for 3rr warning for 8.8 cm SK L/45 naval gun, 8.8 cm SK C/35 naval gun and German minelayer Hansestadt Danzig was missing from the report and ANEW notice was missing from the edit warring report as well, now fixed Chip3004 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

Also subject of SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eurocollins but want to stop their removal of copyright deletion template so that we can address the copyright issues promptly. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – Indef as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eurocollins. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:91.140.5.174 reported by User:SteliosGR (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: 2022–23 Super League Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 91.140.5.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 09:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 09:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC) "Personal warning to stop such edits." (Note: This used deleted my talk message later from his talk page: 11:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC))

Comments:

These edits are about the "positions by round" for the first matchday of the Greek football (soccer) first division. AEK and Aris had both won their respective games 3-0, AEK at Lamia and Aris at home against Levadiakos. Two different criteria make sense for the "positions by round" placement, when positions are equal: Alphabetical name (which name appears first when everything is tied) and away goals. However, away goals rule was abolished since 2022-23 for Greece, as it was abolished by UEFA in general since 2021-22. Even if this rule was in effect, AEK had scored 3 away goals in matchday one, while Aris had scored 0. Therefore, through both criteria, AEK should get the first position for the first round. It is not an option to award both teams the first position, as every team gets exactly one position per round per convention. More strongly though, the current convention for positions if every criterion is equal, is to put the highest alphabetically team on top, as can be seen for the tables of 2022–23 Super League Greece 2, which has not yet started.

This user has been constantly editing this, putting Aris in first place after round 1, with a comment of "away goals rule", which has no effect, but more importantly, no sense, as AEK would be in front even with this rule.

I made an edit warning the user about their mistake in their talk page and letting them know to refrain from such edits. The user never replied, removed my message from their talk page (11:58, 11 October 2022) and went on to make the edit for the third time (12:03, 11 October 2022). All these edits are linked above. SteliosGR (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

According to the EPO, the Super League, all radio and television media, sites and publications, Aris was 1st in the 1st matchday and AEK was 2nd.--91.140.5.174 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs official and reliable sources for what you are saying, not a weak claim that "all websites were saying that AEK was 2nd and Aris was 1st", which is not true and cannot be because of the numbers. And to add on this, sites I recall were claiming either side to be first, but obviously "sites I recall" does not stand as a point, since it is not something debatable or subjective. It is something that relies on numbers. Please, when there are no points for your statement, instead of trying to get your statement through with minor and weak statements, try to accept a situation and refrain from making unconstructive edits. You deleted again 14:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)) my message from your talk. SteliosGR (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Adding to the rest, this user also made an unconstructive edit in Akis Mantzios page, namely here: 12:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC) where he removed the full name (Apostolos) of the coach completely from 3 places that full name always appears. "Akis" is just his nickname. SteliosGR (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Masem reported by User:Rosedaler (Result: Nominator blocked 72h)

Page: History of video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Masem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&oldid=1115146192

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115158294&diffmode=visual
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115169629&diffmode=visual
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115231105&diffmode=visual
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115255470&diffmode=visual
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115439061&diffmode=visual
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115476271&diffmode=visual
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=1115492868&diffmode=visual

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_video_games&type=revision&diff=1115494931&oldid=1115494620&diffmode=visual

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Masem&type=revision&diff=1115496733&oldid=1115496143&diffmode=visual

Comments:

User keeps bulk-reverting my edits without citing specific reasons, or reverting multiple edits when only one should be reverted. This user is also an administrator, which makes me surprised, given their reverting behavior.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosedaler (talk • contribs) 19:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Here due to a talk page watch. I'm pondering that Rosedaler is headed towards a CIR/disruption block rather than an EW block. See their talk page and history of referring to other editors as making mistakes and errors, invalid removal of AFD tags, arguing that other editors actions are "mistakes" so they are free to revert, etc. Either way, Rosedaler has violated 3RR today, though the warning came afterwards. They have argued with the person who warned them that it didn't apply in their case. -- ferret (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  3RR does not apply in this case. In all of my reversions, I have re-added at least a portion of the disputed content. This can only be seen by looking at two diffs in succession. I did it this way because it's easier to edit the page that way. Rosedaler (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Given the actions of the reporting editor including the couple of exchanges I had with them on my talk page, I predict a big BOOMERANG --McSly (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I have cited very specific reasons on the talk page and summarized in the edit summaries. Namely poor use of sources, poor writing style problems and MOS issues, and attempts at large scale changes on a long standing article (BOLD is allowed but they should remember not to re-revert after being reverted). They seem well jntentioned but they also seem to have an unhealthy focus on AR and VR that doesn't follow the sources. Masem (t) 20:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• The filer, User:Rosedaler, has committed a plain old 3RR violation on History of video games and it appears that they qualify for a standard 3RR block. Even if we leave aside the CIR issues mentioned by User:Ferret above. Rosedaler's removal of an AfD template was here. After 1576 edits you would assume that Rosedaler is not a complete newbie. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is incorrect. See my above comment. Rosedaler (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also I removed the AfD template by mistake but it is now re-added after another user helped me.

  Also, I am in fact a complete newbie. I only started editing wikipedia a few weeks ago, with only a couple of IP edits before that. I'm not an alt or sock. Rosedaler (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Rosedaler for 72h. Also, unlike Masem, I do not believe that Rosedaler is "well intentioned".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  While I respectfully disagree with my colleague concerning intentions, I have just come from UTRS appeal #64049 and endorse the block. I agree with others above concerning competence issues. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  I had to revoke TPA because of the disruption by the user on their Talk page, but that is outdone by miles by the user's activity at UTRS - I have never seen such rapid-editing nonsense in my life, including YouTube links and attacks and god knows what. I'm not sure what it takes for you to believe that a user does not have "good intentions", Deepfriedokra, if this doesn't do it for you. Ferret has asked me if I object to them indeffing the user, and I was on the fence until I saw the UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  They are now indef'd. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Still willing to chock it up to a lack of competence, which covers a lot of ground, but I think the indef is a great idea as an inevitable outcome. User should probably read Tamzin's essay. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)