Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive485

User:Kelvintjy reported by User:Peaceray (Result: Page protected)

Page: Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1234812026 by Raoul mishima (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC) to 12:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan

Comments:

Raoul mishima & Kelvintjy are both involved in an edit war. This topic is not within my expertise, but it is clear that someone needs to step in to arbitrate. Peaceray (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected Both users were given warnings after their most recent edits, so blocking is not appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. I was not meaning for the editors to be blocked, only that some sort of mediation might be required, & that these particular editors be guided to discussion on the talk page. However, since Kelvintjy is an extended confirmed user & has not engaged in discussion on the talk page nor has explained their reverts to Raoul mishima's edits, perhaps page protection is best for now. Peaceray (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

  • I have only revert back the edit made by Raoul mishima as previous editors had tried to talk to him but he keep making the edits without discussing with other editors first. On top of that, most of thye edits thatr I had reverted are well sourced for quite some times already. These past few months, Raoul mishima had made quite a lot of edits and 2 of the pages is editted too much that it is not recognizable due to his edits. The pages are Soka Gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda. Kelvintjy (talk) 09:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You may also want to refer to the below talk page where a few editors tried to talk to Raoul mishima but it was unsuccessful.

• User talk:Raoul mishima
• Talk:Soka Gakkai International
• Talk:Daisaku Ikeda

Kelvintjy (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kelvintjy: I wish to note that of the eight reversions that you did to Raoul mishima' edits at Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan, you left an edit summary on only one of them, in which you stated It is already weel sourced. It is you who made all the edit where other had tried to discuss. I will note that Raoul mishima made several statements about references in the edit summary & opened a discussion on the talk page. As of 2024-07-17 16:28 UTC, no one has responded at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan § Biased.

You left no comments on the article talk page or Raoul mishima's talk page. Without any meaningful communication on your part to indicate your reasoning, your behavior seemed like edit warring.

I believe that it would have been helpful to reference discussions in the edit summary & at Talk:Political dissidence in the Empire of Japan. As the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay suggests, it is best to engage discussion on the talk page. Please review the WP:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Peaceray (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Kelvintjy is a member of a controversial religious organization called Sôka Gakkai. Each time someone edits one of the pages related to this organization, he simply censors it. All his « well source » paragraphs are taken from books written by members of this organization. I have tried to add other views, critics, to make those pages more encyclopedic but Kelvin is not ok with critics.

Kelvinjy never tried to talk to me or discuss on the talk page, whereas I proposed many times - this is easy to check.

Please tell him Wikipedia is not his playground and/or just type « Sôka gakkai controversy » in google to realize those pages urgently need other POVs. Thanks. Raoul mishima (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Raoul mishima: Please review the page on dispute resolution. I would use the Wikipedia:Third opinion & mediation process.

I would also use the {{Primary source inline}} template to mark sources that are demonstrably primary sources. Anyone removing such a template could receive the {{Uw-tdel1}} warning or higher. Do not post warning messages on user talk pages yourself, Raoul mishima! Let a more experienced editor who does recent changes patrol or who monitors vandalism take care of such warnings. Peaceray (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks @Peaceray.

I will do that.

I’m not the only one concerned : @Wound theology also tried to ad informations about Sôka Gakkai but he also was censored by @Kelvintjy. Raoul mishima (talk) 06:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

User:MarksmanRifle reported by User:Seasider53 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Hawk Tuah Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarksmanRifle (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]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ambeskine reported by User:Jlwoodwa (Result: Blocked 48 hours, article put on indef ECP and logged at CTOPS)

Page: Taylor Small (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life */ perhaps this is a good compromise?"
2. 01:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "As an openly transgender person, this is quite due and appropriate to address"
3. 00:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "It is an accurate statement."
4. 23:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC) "No reason given for reverting"
5. 22:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Squeakachu (talk): Previous version was accurate"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC) "alert ctop gas"
2. 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Taylor Small."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life */ new section"

Comments:

Repeatedly editing a trans woman's biography to describe her as male. I performed four reverts, but I believe that at least the three removing the phrase "male genitalia" qualify as WP:3RRBLP. I apologize if this is not the case. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed the "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning" section. I submitted this report using Twinkle, and its description for that section is simply "Warnings given to subject". jlwoodwa (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1235960849 is a sixth reversion (a partial revert of Special:Diff/1235917165). jlwoodwa (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you addressed your edit warring at Brian Titone above? I believe that is also relevant to the discussion. Ambeskine (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I made a single revert to Brianna Titone. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I should be the one making the report against Jlwoodwa, who started the series of reverts and escalated it to this point. Since I am civil and have no interest in seeing another editor get blocked, however, I chose not to take this action. Ambeskine (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours It's a shorter block only because the user was alerted to CTOPS (GENSEX) after the edit warring. I have nonetheless put the page on indefinite ECP so Ambeskine won't be able to edit it for a while after the block expires (and keep an eye out for PGAMEing that should result in at least a revocation of ECP if earned that way.), and per recent discussions at AE enforcement that have unofficially allowed us to do this in GENSEX articles in cases of misgendering. This will also be logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you might have read it wrong – the ctop alert was at 22:59, between their first (22:08) and second (23:26) reverts. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt because the reverting started before the CTOPS alert. But due to the ECP Ambeskine won't be a problem on that article for a while. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7C:7D8D:1400:C4AB:83C4:83C0:98D7 reported by User:Czello (Result: /64 blocked for a week)

Page: Dyson (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:C7C:7D8D:1400:C4AB:83C4:83C0:98D7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "#article-section-source-editor"
2. 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "Updated short description"
3. 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "#article-section-source-editor"
4. [10]

Other edits 2 days ago

1. [11]
2. [12]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dyson (company)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note that I've also included edits above from 2 days ago on a different IP on the /64 range. — Czello ^(music) 14:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week 2A02:C7C:7D8D:1400:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Adult Virgin reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Elliot Rodger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "put 'known for' section back to its original state, after talk page discussion and provision of reliable source....this time added "proposed" to compromise with other editors"
2. 05:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "corrected 'known for' section"
3. 20:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "put it back to its original state, which it was in for months....which is factual"
4. 11:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "put 'known for' section back to rights"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Introduction to contentious topics */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "/* RFC: Referring to Elliot Rodger as the "Founding Father of the incel ideology" in the infobox */ new section"

Comments:

Editor is reverting to their preferred version. Notably the last two reverts have been while there is an RFC in process. TarnishedPath^talk 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Please block. Warning would be inadequate for this disagreeable user who is calling others "stupid" and fighting over their preferred version. I anticipate this user will see an indef sooner than later. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Please also compare to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dominic_Pringle/Archive. I hear some ducks. TarnishedPath^talk 12:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Preime TH reported by User:Horus (Result: Both warned)

Page: Senate of Thailand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Preime TH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [18]
2. Please refer to Talk:Senate of Thailand#‎Division of the 2024 Senate

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:
The disagreement was whether the senate composition diagram should reflect de jure or de facto nature of the chamber. There seem to be precedents supporting both cases such as Senate of Canada (which shows parliamentary groups) and National Council (Bhutan) (which shows source of members). I proposed a compromise to show both diagrams at the same time, without objections from the user. However, since I put on the second diagram, I was accused of being "crazy about politics" [20] and "bossy," [21] which might indicate the user's lack of interest in participating in good-faith discussion.

Horus (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment You have both violated WP:3RR, so you can both be blocked or neither. I suggest you take this as a final warning to stop, and if reverts continue, that party will be blocked. I also suggest that next time you follow WP:BRD and do not attempt to force material back into the article before gaining consensus for it. Number 57 15:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Number 57: I did not force anything, since Preime TH did not object to the compromise in the thread. Also, if you think the consensus building could still be made in this case, I would like you to head the discussion or come up with some other remedies, otherwise I'm pretty sure Preime TH would just insist that my argument is not worth paying attention and bring up "political", "bossy" rhetoric. --Horus (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Page: Cheb Mami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Revirvlkodlaku (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 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) to 02:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
   1. 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "Overlinking; genfixes"
   2. 02:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC) "User:M.Bitton, I reverted your original inclusion of this content, so the onus is on you to start a discussion on the talk page, not revert (and then cleverly accuse ME of edit warring!) Until the issue is settled, the content should not be included, as you haven't made your case yet."
2. 14:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Career */ section needs more citations; translation isn't important—don't just state it to be so, explain why you believe that."
3. 13:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Copy edit"
4. 13:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236180489 by M.Bitton (talk) The section is unreferenced, so how do you determine what is and isn't nonsense?"
5. 03:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "copy edit; genfixes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cheb Mami."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* July 2024 */ new section"
2. 15:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* July 2024 */"

Comments:

Apart from violating 3RR, they seem to be more interested in making a point than improving the article: first, they restored some unsourced nonsense while expecting me to provide an explanation of why "unsourced nonsense" is "unsourced" and "nonsense", second, they removed content that I added while falsely labelling their editing as "copyediting" and when restored, they removed it again without explanation, and again while asking to start a discussion that I already started hours earlier. M.Bitton (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

User:102.67.77.85 reported by User:Czello (Result: /27 blocked for a month)

Page: Liv Morgan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 102.67.77.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 18:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 16:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Liv Morgan."
2. 20:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC) "/* July 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

Persistent addition of an unreliable source which has been flagged to the user. — Czello ^(music) 20:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month Per the SPI investigation I have blocked 102.67.77.64/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Another IP 102.67.77.154‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) return to similar edit on the same page. Change with 102.67.77.0/22 to block. AmritR012 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: — Czello ^(music) 12:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

User:HazzelDazzleDoDah reported by User:Viewmont Viking (Result: Blocked from article 72 hours)

Page: Richmond, North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HazzelDazzleDoDah (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. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:

• I was one of the editors who reverted HazzelDazzleDoDah's edit. I reverted that edit because it cited Wikipedia. But looking at the dispute, I think the disputed parts should be temporarily removed from the article until consensus can be reached through dispute resolution. Warning HazzelDazzleDoDah about 3RR should be enough. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• I am the editor that this user is most in conflict with. I have tried to explain my reasoning and policy on their talk page, but I couldn't word it properly (sorry). There have been personal attacks, but what is bothering me is the non-adherence to policy which I have linked to, specifically the rule about edit warring, and the response afterwards was I'm not interested in being right, only getting it right. I don't care for an edit war or whatever you think is going on here. I am more than happy with Kovcszaln6's suggestion about consensus regarding the content - my issue was its removal when it has been properly cited without a sensible reason for its removal. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• I am okay with following Kovcszaln6 recommendation of a Warning, however there is the concern of the Uncivil comments as well"...I don't know how to teach you critical thinking skills.", "You are contributing to ignoranc, whether you mean to or not" which is technically out of scope here, but shows along with this comment "Otherwise I will continue to remove your edit. That the editor is not really here to collaborate with other editors.--VViking_TalkEdits 18:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from article per above. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Curious man123 reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: No violation)

Page: Mughal Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Curious man123 (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. [29]
2. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

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

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

Comments:

• Not a violation of WP:3RR, but the user has been engaging in an edit war to change British Raj to Company rule in India even though there exists a consensus in the talk page to include only British Raj in the succession list in the infobox. PadFoot (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
• No violation. Also stale. Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Legobro99 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Transformers One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Legobro99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236835164 by Catalyst GP real (talk)"
2. 19:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236834902 by Catalyst GP real (talk) Please stop vandalising."
3. 19:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236833876 by Catalyst GP real (talk)"
4. 18:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236788182 by Catalyst GP real (talk)"
5. 13:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236777250 by HaydenTCEM (talk)"
6. 11:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236754090 by 2A02:C7C:DACE:F100:9D2A:D459:8459:C74F (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Transformers One."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Legobro99 */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: It looks like a 3RR violation from Catalyst GP real as well. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan: Thanks for catching that, I don't think I scrolled down far enough. I've blocked Catalyst for 48 hours - shorter because it's a first block for them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

User:110.78.151.114 reported by User:Closed Limelike Curves (Result: Blocked 31h)

Page: Scott Sumner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 110.78.151.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Please discuss, before deleting over 12,000 words, written by multiple editors over years. You should go through each statement, line by line, and provide your reasons for deleting."
2. 20:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Reverting due to a rogue editor, who continues to remove over 12,000 words, which all appear to be cited from Sumner's blog. Editor oddly claims vandalism."
3. 20:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 20:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Someone continues to delete large chucnks of relevant information, including Scott's opinions on Covid. Please, do not delete statements that are properly cited. Why are you erasing over 12,000 words?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources (UV 0.1.5)"
2. 20:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC) "/* BLP edits */ Reply"

Comments:

Requesting topic ban for IP. IP has apparently been tendentiously reinserting the same material to a WP:BLP for 1.5 years now, despite repeatedly being reverted by many different editors. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Might be even longer (getting reverted since March 2022) if they happen to be the same person as @Micahrob, which seems possible based on their edit histories. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours for disruption by ScottishFinnishRadish. We almost never topic-ban IPs, and this one would be no exception.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks; wasn't aware of the no topic-banning rule. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Be Jain reported by User:ParvatPrakash (Result: No violation)

Page: Abhinandananatha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Be Jain (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. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]
7. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [42]

Comments:
This user (alongwith myself) were banned from editing Rishabhanatha for edit warring. The said user is constantly changing images (and engaging in edit wars) without discussing. Other pages where this user has possibly engaged in edit wars are Ajitnatha and Sumatinatha. I stopped engaging in edit wars after learning about the 3RR, but I see this user engaging in edit wars with other users constantly on some specific pages. ParvatPrakash (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  The said user keeps undoing edits by other users. They were warned and blocked from an article just a few days ago. They are continuing to edit war on Abhinandananatha. I thought 3RR was the only rule. Does there exist a policy I'm unaware of? ParvatPrakash (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  ParvatPrakash, Bbb23 is likely referring to the three-reverts-per-24-hours rule, also known as "3RR". However, independently of that rule, the policy against edit warring prohibits more than just exceeding three reverts in 24 hours. Continuing to edit war after an edit warring block, for example, is clearly an issue. I have blocked Be Jain and Rahulpalawat indefinitely for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh ok, I understand that now. Thank you very much for explaining the policy. I'll keep that in mind in future. ParvatPrakash (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Fred.jp reported by User:Silver seren (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Yasuke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fred.jp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

Comments: Editor has been edit warring in a controversy section in a historical biography with very blatant POV statements being made in their edit summaries (which probably also violate WP:BLP for the history professor they're talking about) and have been reverted by multiple editors (including myself). They were given a 3RR warning and reverted again ten minutes later, as shown in the final diff given above, with their edit summary threatening that they will take the warring to other parts of the article if they keep getting reverted. Silverseren^C 02:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

User:216.15.48.236 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Killing of Sonya Massey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 216.15.48.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 00:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 00:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 21:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeatedly trying to insert a video (that is seemingly fake per an edit summary?) in the page. I'm not trying to assume anything, but this seems like someone who's trying to justify a police killing. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Reverted again as I wrote this, making this even more of a clear cut 3RR violation. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And they've said that they are going to keep changing it back. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

And they are indeed continuing. I think it's up to something around 10RR now. Meters (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. LilianaUwU, some of your comments on the IP's Talk page are completely inappropriate. Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I was directed here by my notification bell. That's not even my IP address. I have only edited from my own username, yet I received a message directing me to the talk page of an IP address I don't own. ExistentialBliss (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Bluerules reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: No violation)

Page: Deadpool & Wolverine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bluerules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2024-07-25T09:30:42

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2024-07-27T23:44:49
2. 2024-07-28T00:37:24
3. 2024-07-28T00:54:49
4. 2024-07-28T01:29:31

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning from May 2024, I also warned them after their 4th revert in this discussion where they insist they only reverted three times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't actually reverted them at all, and after their 4th revert, they finally started a discussion on the talk page.

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

Comments: Worth noting that Bluerules has previously been blocked for 3RR, but it has been over a decade apparently. I wouldn't have reported it given they state no intention to continue, but they deny violating 3RR, so here we are. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:49, 28 July 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 is often the case here, "making an edit and then reverting to it three times in 24 hours" has been conflated with "making the same revert four times in 24 hours". If they continue this behavior, that might be different, but they have not yet and say they will not further revert. (I'd also note that the "previous version" you linked to when warning them they had violated 3RR (which they couldn't have with that edit as it was two days before that first one) was by another editor). Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I will be adding a CTOPS notice per WP:CT/CID to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case The previous version had the infobox contents as Bluerules reverted it back to. I was not stating any other editor had reverted it, only that this was how the infobox had appeared just two days ago, so all four edits by Bluerules provided as diffs above are, in fact, "reverts" per WP:3RR: The term "revert" is defined as any edit ... that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. In this case, the first revert was a "manual" revert (in part), while subsequent reverts utilized Undo. The edit he was reverting/undoing was this edit (2024-07-25T09:32:21). The only temporal requirement of 3RR is the reverts themselves, and all four occurred within a 24 hour span. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The previous version did not have the same infobox contents as my first edit. The previous version has a note in the starring parameter that reads, "Per credits billing order on the theatrical poster. Do not change until it can be changed to the film's actual credits order." In my edit, the note in the starring parameter reads, "Per billing block." The previous version does not identify the location of the David H. Koch Theater in the starring parameter. In my edit, the starring parameter identifies the David H. Koch Theater as being in NYC. The gross parameter is empty in the previous version. In my edit, the gross parameter contains information about how much money the film has made at the box office so far. And there's a minor punctuation difference in the note about 20th Century Studios not being a production company or a distributor. These differences make it clear that my edit was not how the infobox appeared just two days ago. Help:Reverting defines a partial reversion as "restoring one part of the page to a previous version" and my edit did not restore the starring parameter to a previous version, let alone the entire infobox. Bluerules (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Bluerules, this is not about help page wording; Locke Cole, this shouldn't be about technicalities.

Yes, Special:Diff/1237062304 is arguably a revert of Special:Diff/1236553654. No, the 3.5 reverts didn't lead to a block. Bluerules was edit warring, which is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule, and the main reason why I dislike even evaluating whether there has been a 3RR violation is that people start arguing about completely unnecessary details in such discussions. Bluerules has stopped edit warring, removing the preventative need for a block. If it continues, that would be different. It doesn't matter whether it continues within 24 hours.

This is closed and can be archived; content discussion is currently active at Talk:Deadpool & Wolverine § The starring parameter of the infobox. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Oleg Yunakov reported by User:RAN1 (Result: )

I didn't read the CT awareness requirements thoroughly enough and I think WP:AE would be the better venue for this, so I will be refiling there. Please consider this withdrawn. RAN1 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Page: Majdal Shams attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Oleg Yunakov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: 21:57, 27 July 2024 Diffs of the user's reverts: NSFW: 13:15, 28 July 2024: Oleg Yunakov reinserts a graphic war image. NSFW: 17:48, 28 July 2024: Oleg Yunakov reinserts the image again. Diff of WP:CT/AI 1RR warning: 22:34, 7 June 2024 Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extended discussion Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 18:43, 28 July 2024 Comments: The user User:RAN1 has already been told by another user on his talk page in section "RAN1#WP:1RR_at_Majdal_Shams_attack" that the reason for his removal is invalid. But he didn't listen and insisted to continue protesting and to remove the image claiming the copyvio as a reason when it was shown that there is no proof for a copyvio. Then I have also explained to him in a detailed conversation and sumarized here and here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC) What is 13:15, 28 July 2024 a revert of? I'm unable to find it in the edit history. For the reviewer, note that RAN1 has violated WP:1RR removing this image, and has refused to self revert: 15:19, 28 July 2024 15:42, 28 July 2024 I’m also not seeing any request for Oleg to self-revert; such a request is expected to be made in this topic area, given the strictness of 1RR, prior to any report being made. BilledMammal (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC) In addition, from my side the first edit was not "reinserting" and not reverting but adding (I didn't see that the image was removed before). I have created the article about it in ruwiki and another user added the image there. When I saw it I have cropped the image and then saw that we have no such image in enwiki and added it here as well. Then RAN1 started to argue about copyvio as the reason to remove and was explained that there is no such issue. After the new (for me) reason about aleged "unnecessarily gruesome picture" I didn't reinsert or revert. And will open the talk section to discus if there are indeed issues with "unnecessarily gruesome picture" on a blurred image. Also the point here "Diff of WP:CT/AI 1RR warning: 22:34, 7 June 2024" is referring to a case when there was no issue. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC) The talk page section is titled "Cover photography is too graphic". RAN1 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC) And? Anyone who reads from your ping to me and down will see that there we all only spoke about copyright issues. And your removal reason during the conversation was clearly stated as copyvio here. After we have explained to you that there are no copyvio issues and then there was one revert from my side with notification on the talk page again for the same copyvio reason. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Lovely dolphin reported by User:JayBeeEll (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Widest path problem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "The rule is "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, ...", https://github.com/mike-liuliu/Algorithm_4 is the official code of Algorithm 4. So it is an acceptable external link. Undid revision 1237223434 by XOR'easter (talk)"
2. 17:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Python code of Algorithm 4 can be found at https://github.com/mike-liuliu/Algorithm_4. It is the fastest algorithm for solving the all points path distance (APPD) matrix by far. If you know a faster or earlier O(n^2) time algorithm for calculating the APPD matrix than Algorithm 4, please provide the URL of the code implementation of the algorithm. Undid revision 1237199479 by David Eppstein (talk)"
3. 12:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Please show the URL of the code so that people can verify your claim. Undid revision 1237130479 by David Eppstein (talk)"
4. 01:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Really? "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." Undid revision 1237075058 by David Eppstein (talk)"

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

Comments: Another one since this report was filed: 19:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC). --JBL (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

User:65.94.124.30 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Creature Commandos (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 65.94.124.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237217873 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
2. 17:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237192417 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
3. 10:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1236926221 by Trailblazer101 (talk) it was revealed in the teaser trailer"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Creature Commandos (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeatedly reverting to reinstate their own edits after it was explained how they were incorrect or not a standard. Has a history of disruptive editing across these comic book adaptation articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The IP has continued to persist in restoring their preferred version without providing any explanation for their reverts, and continues to despite violating the WP:3RR. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Lucy Letby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237439917 by Gumlau (talk) Due weight and quotes have already been given to that Guardian article"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) to 19:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "Removed from intro per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This gives recent news reports, which themselves are disputed, far too much prominence in the intro"
   2. 19:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "Range of issues here that need to be addressed, some of these things are already undergoing on an ongoing discussion on talk. Some other problems with POV commentary and lack of sources for parts"
   3. 19:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "No this is still under disupte and discussion at Talk:Lucy Letby#RSEDITORIAL. It may be that it is restored but not yet"
   4. 19:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "Removed from intro per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This gives recent news reports, which themselves are disputed, far too much prominence in the intro"
3. 07:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237127569 by PerSeAnd (talk) Please see WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS. Continued reversions will also mean you are in breach of WP:3RR, which I have already warned you about. There is also an ongoing talk page discussion already, so there can be no excuse for more"
4. 07:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237125147 by PerSeAnd (talk) Yes it is, look again"
5. 06:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "See talk page discussion in which this content is currently in dispute"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was warned about edit-warring on 27 May 2024[53] and 19 July 2024[54], both times about this article (the only one Houseplant Hobbyist has edited in the last 6 months). They were reported on 20 July 2024 and the article protected for 2 days.[55] They have continued to discuss at Talk:Lucy Letby, where they are in dispute with several editors, none of whom are in agreement with HouseplantHobbyist. They have made five reverts, of different material by various editors, in about two hours. They justified two of them in edit summaries as "undergoing an ongoing discussion" and "still under dispute and discussion", but this looks more like claiming to have a veto so long as they keep posting on the talk page. NebY (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:NebY, whilst you were making this report I had just updated the article to attempt to incorporate a large amount of the content that editors wanted in, just in a more appropriate and NPOV way: [56]. If you had just waited a minute, you could have worked with my reinstation of some form of the content I removed in those reversions. previous reversions. If I hadn't already done this big edit which involved multiple self-reversions, I would self-revert my own edits. But as you can see, a lot of that stuff that I reverted before I have now restored in what seems to me to be a much more NPOV way. Let me demonstrate how some of those reversions have now been restored by myself:

1. 1 [57] "See talk page discussion in which this content is currently in dispute" - that content has now been restored in a slightly reduced way with the most recent edit: [58]
2. 2 [59] "Undid revision 1237125147 by PerSeAnd (talk) Yes it is, look again" - see above
3. 3 [60] "Undid revision 1237127569 by PerSeAnd (talk) Please see WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS. Continued reversions will also mean you are in breach of WP:3RR, which I have already warned you about. There is also an ongoing talk page discussion already, so there can be no excuse for more" - see above
4. 4 [61] "No this is still under disupte and discussion at Talk:Lucy Letby#RSEDITORIAL. It may be that it is restored but not yet" - see above
5. 5 [62] "Range of issues here that need to be addressed, some of these things are already undergoing on an ongoing discussion on talk. Some other problems with POV commentary and lack of sources for parts" - My most recent edit [63] re-incorporated some of that content, e.g. the Dr Hammond part in Private Eye, which I specifically went out to find a separate secondary source for to back up and this time added back in with that
6. 6 These two - [64] and [65] Removed from intro per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This gives recent news reports, which themselves are disputed, far too much prominence in the intro - are actually just one revert, I just had to repeat it because it got lost in the temporary rollbacking I did here: [66].

In short, most of those reverts I did I then self-reverted as part of one big edit here: [67] that attempted to incorporate much of what those reverted edit's had expressed, but in what I thought was a much more NPOV and balanced way, with appropriate sourcing and wording. Yes I have probably done a few too many reversions, but I've also not partially self-reverted in doing that big edit incorporating a lot of the previously reverted content. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday, 28 July 2024, you gave a 3RR warning to another editor.[68] You should read it. NebY (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Avatar317 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Declined)

Page: ThorCon nuclear reactor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Avatar317 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:05, 26 July 2024
2. 23:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237240527 by VQuakr (talk) Contested content doesn't belong in an article unless there is CONSENSUS for it to be there. AGAIN: Per WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.""
3. 19:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237214679 by VQuakr (talk) Unless an Independent Source mentions the viewpoint of UCS, the mere existence of UCS and them publishing content on their website about this reactor does NOT make it acceptable to have in this article. It WP:UNDUEly represents their opinion. Per WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "/* WP:EW */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Neutrality of this article */ re"
2. 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Neutrality of this article */ re"

Comments:

Ongoing edit warring behavior at this and other articles. Gaming 3RR and stonewalling per edit summary at [69]. Previously warned for similar behavior at Linear no-threshold model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Shouting. VQuakr (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Declined Citing WP:ONUS is not a particularly unambiguous example of gaming 3RR or stonewalling, and the previous warning alluded to above was from VQuakr after Avatar317 made a single revert to another article 10 days ago. If this issue merited a block, both of you would be subject to it, but it doesn't seem warrant that at this time. @VQuakr and Avatar317: I would highly suggest both of you cease reverting on this article until there is a consensus for or against, using WP:DR if necessary. Continued reverting may likely result in blocks, even if it is only one additional revert. - Aoidh (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ajnh0320 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Alternative for Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ajnh0320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "Ideology is revised to National conservatism, Social conservatism, Right-wing populism, Ultraconservatism, Russophilia, Euroscepticism, Identitarianism, Nativism, German nationalism, Reactionism, Anti-immigration, Anti-feminism, Christian nationalism, Anti-communism, Economic liberalism. Factions is revised to Neo-fascism, Neo-Nazism, Völkisch nationalism, and Pan-Germanism. Please Do not revert to the original document."
2. 12:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "Ideology is revised to National conservatism, Social conservatism, Right-wing populism, Ultraconservatism, Russophilia, Euroscepticism, Identitarianism, Nativism, German nationalism, Reactionism, Anti-immigration, Anti-feminism, Christian nationalism, Anti-communism, Economic liberalism. Factions is revised to Neo-fascism, Neo-Nazism, Völkisch nationalism, and Pan-Germanism."
3. 11:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 10:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Alternative for Germany */ new section"
2. 12:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alternative for Germany."
3. 19:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Ideology warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ajnh0320 is a relatively new account who has a habit of mass-changing political ideoligies (WP:IDWAR) on pages. Their changes are always unsourced,[70][71][72][73] contradict existing sources,[74] delete existing sources,[75][76] and ignore comments requesting editors to get consensus before changing.[77] Despite numerous attempts at communication they've failed to respond. — Czello ^(music) 07:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

He is also in an investigation for being a sockpuppet. One of the other sockpuppets (Hidolo) with the same owner has been permanently blocked for constant edit warring (on en.wiki) Odideum (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Nswix reported by User:ProdigyUpdates (Result: No violation)

Page: Belal Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of UFC champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC) "that doesnt establish notability. dont change until a concencus is formed"
2. 01:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC) "per MOS:ETHNICITY"

1. 20:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237643110 by ProdigyUpdates"
2. 19:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC) "Those are that way because it is proven that they have that nationality. not because of what they choose to walkout with. this isnt politically motivated, just keep it consistent with their nationalities."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC) on Talk:List_of_UFC_champions "Belal Muhammad's Flag: new section"

Comments:

Continuously changes nationality and flags on athlete's page and various UFC related pages despite consensus already being reached on various talk pages. They are also violating MOS:ETHNICITY since notability of ethnicity has been clearly established on Talk:Belal_Muhammad, 30 July 2024 (UTC) ProdigyUpdates (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• None of these are three reverts. Nswix (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Just because you did not hit the 'undo' button to revert the change does not take away from the obvious intent and ultimate result. ProdigyUpdates (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on this issue has most definitely not been reached yet. Belal has been listed under the American flag on Wikipedia for over 3 years now. Rcpilot9 (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Eight years. His page has said American since it was created in 2016 Nswix (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• No violation on either article. Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:ProdigyUpdates reported by User:Nswix (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Belal Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: UFC rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Ultimate Fighting Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of UFC records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ProdigyUpdates (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: Diff

Comments:

Has dug their heels in about an American athlete of Palestinian ethnicity, who ‘must be labeled as Palestinian, because they walk out with an Palestinian flag’, despite there being no evidence of Palestinian nationality and it not meeting MOS:ETHNICITY. I get its a hot topic, but we cant just keep reverting pages that have been uncontentious for years, because you decided its not right. Nswix (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• User continues to spread misinformation. I have never used that quote. This athlete is listed by UFC and ESPN as a Palestinian fighter which is enough to establish notability. I'm afraid the user may be using their personal political motivation to discredit these obvious facts. ProdigyUpdates (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have over 15,000 edits in the martial arts space, none of which have ever been described as politically motivated. You have 200, most in the last couple of day and all concerning one athlete. Nswix (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

All the more unfortunate that as an experienced Wikipedian, you cannot keep your personal bias aside when dealing with uncontested facts that clearly meet MOS:ETHNICITY standards and all reputable UFC and ESPN websites listing the athlete as Palestinian. ProdigyUpdates (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, ProdigyUpdates did not violate 3RR on any of the articles listed. Another admin may be willing to evaluate PU's overall conduct and whether it's sanctionable; my recommendation is that this be brought to ANI. I should also mention that at List of UFC champions both PU and Rcpilot9 have violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• It was just at AIV, they pointed us here. Do we really have to play this out in a third place? Nswix (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Jchs08 reported by User:Elijah Palmer (Result: Blocked 48 hours + another indefinitely)

2024 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jchs08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]

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:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, plus Legobro99 indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

User:143.159.107.27 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Joseph Lister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 143.159.107.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC) "The National Portrait Gallery calls him English, the site Histiry Today does, the National Institute of Health does and his father on here is called English!!! His surname search on wiki puts his name as origin of English in the word box!!!"
2. 01:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC) "his father has been called english since he was first entered on here! i can’t see what the issue is! he was born and raised here just like his father. if the surgeon Hunter is called Scottish and not british then lister should be called English. hunter originated with the saxon’s who migrated thru these isles. admins are bias and prejudice and have been in the job too long that they have gone beyond all common sense and human decency. it’s farcical and petty. no wonder people do not trust o..."
3. 21:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 04:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) on User talk:143.159.107.27 "/* Ethnicity */ new section"

Comments:

Has repeatedly changed nationality over the last week, mainly on the basis of the origins of his name. Attempts on their talk page, but refuses to discuss other than in edit summary rants. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Seems to be still at it. scope_creep^Talk 22:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:87.252.38.14 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Philip Bobbitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.252.38.14 (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. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]
5. [87]
6. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [90]

Comments:

• A page block would be sufficient - they're making arguments on their user talk page that should be made at the article talk page.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• There have been two additional reverts since I provided notification of this report.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week for edit-warring and the IP is a webhost. Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

User:FlightTime reported by User:DragionTech007 (Result:Indef partial block of reporter)

Page: Cynthia Rothrock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237978508 by DragionTech007 (talk)"
2. 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237977812 by DragionTech007 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Disruption 2."
2. 13:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cynthia Rothrock."
3. 13:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ + Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User: FlightTime keeps attempting to revert and insert an outdated infobox image (circa 2018) on Wikipage. Newer image (Jan 2024) has been restored.

Any passing admin should note that this is clearly a retaliatory report for the discussion above. DragionTech007 is edit warring to insert their own photograph which clearly does not have consensus. — Czello ^(music) 15:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

OP is now engaging in very obvious WP:QUACK sockpuppetry[91] — Czello ^(music) 15:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've partial blocked DragionTech007 indefinitely from Cynthia Rothrock and blocked their two  Confirmed socks.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Le Blue Dude reported by User:Hornpipe2 (Result: Warning, Semi)

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

User being reported: Le Blue Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 19:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC) "Well, how about a compromise? We keep the link but put it behind a trigger warning so that people actually have a warning."
3. 17:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC) "There is no 'sitewide' consensus about this link. There is probably no other article in this situation where the article does not mention the potential harm that could be caused by viewing the link. It is unfair to include a link that could cause harm without including a warning"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User persistently trying to alter the infobox to remove or alter a link to a site, despite being told repeatedly that this is not how links / infoboxes work Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

sorry I don't know how to use Twinkle I guess! I wanted to add that there is discussion on the talk page about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sinfest#Shouldn't_be_a_direct_link - but that the user continues to make changes despite being told that this isn't how it works Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:Elno #2 Le Blue Dude (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

guess you missed the bolded text at the top of WP:ELNO then Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I disagree with your assessment. In the deletion section and also in the talk page this has been discussed and the general consensus is that the link should not be included because the page does not mention the extreme anti-Semitic content of the link in question anywhere on the page. It is harmful to expose people to extreme anti-semitic content without warning. Le Blue Dude (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I will let an administrator weigh in on this, but ultimately the back-and-forth is out of control on that page and needs some intervention. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This is part of why there’s been motion to delete the page. The contents of Sinfest include extreme anti-semitic content and Covid misinformation and the article provides no mention. The sooner an admin sees this and either suspends Wp:or or deletes the article the better. Le Blue Dude (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not the consensus of the talk page at all. — Czello ^(music) 15:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Two vs one, and in the delete page more Le Blue Dude (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia isn't a straw poll. Numbers don't mean anything, it's the arguments that matter - and the arguments are particularly weak right now. Secondly I've just waded in, so it's not even 2v1 now. Third, the arguments on the AfD are about deletion, not whether a link should be included. — Czello ^(music) 15:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

And now it's 3v2 in favour of inclusion, so that's that. — Czello ^(music) 15:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Result: User:Le Blue Dude is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page. I'm also semiprotecting the article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

User:DragionTech007 reported by User:FlightTime (Result:Blocked by Ponyo )

Page: Cynthia Rothrock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DragionTech007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Outdated image - Undid revision 1237978648 by FlightTime (talk)"
2. 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237978177 by FlightTime (talk)"
3. 13:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237429330 by FlightTime (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Disruption 2."
2. 13:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cynthia Rothrock."
3. 13:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ + Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: DragionTech007 is now engaging in very obvious WP:QUACK sockpuppetry[92] — Czello ^(music) 15:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked by @Ponyo: - FlightTime (open channel) 16:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

User:TurkeyAndHungry reported by User:CommunityNotesContributor (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: 2024 England riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TurkeyAndHungry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: August 2-3

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5 (since report)
6. 6 (since report)

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:
New single-issue editor is edit-warring despite warning on talk page and discussion opened on article page. CNC (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

He made a list of changes that he wanted implemented on the TalkPage, so I added all of the changes he asked for and updated the article. Beyond that he has not said why he dislikes my changes after already catering to his requests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurkeyAndHungry (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

So I am not in violation of the 3R rule because I basically implemented all the changes he wanted. TurkeyAndHungry (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, you literally clicked the "Undo" button 4 times. It's hard to find a clearer 3RR violation than that. C F A 💬 00:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Could someone point out if I should bother to respond to that? It's not clear if it's worthwhile. CNC (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

... And now you're up to 6 reverts. C F A 💬 00:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Control-alt-delete reported by User:Scope creep (Result: Declined)

Page: German-American Petroleum Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Control-alt-delete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:22:59, 29 July 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:59, 29 July 2024 Addition of unsourced content copied without attribution from another article. Removed it. Left a message on editors talk asking why they were adding unsourced content.
2. 2 August 2024 Reverted and added back unsourced content.
3. 00:48, 2 August 2024 Reverted again and added the unsourced content. Removed it. Left a message on editors talk page asking why they are adding unsourced content.
4. 00:49, 2 August 2024 Left an abusive message on my talk page.
5. 00:57, 2 August 2024 Reverted again and added unsourced content
6. 01:03, 2 August 2024 Reverted again and left an abusive message " Still trying to add citations but this moron wants to cause edit conflicts"

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:
Left two messages warning the editor over attribution and adding unsourced content. Editor has WP:CIR issues. Editor has been unncessarily abusive. scope_creep^Talk 00:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

From the get-go this user left very passive aggressive remarks to me. I am still actively adding the citations that are needed. I am thankful that this user spotted the need for citations, however continuously rolling back my edits whilst I am literally in the middle of adding them is highly obstructive. Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 00:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Scope creep, Special:Diff/1238073380 and Special:Diff/1238074434 have probably not been necessary, and the former lacked an explanation. Special:Diff/1238073057 appears to be inaccurate ("Every sentence that is added to Wikipedia needs a reference", "illegal") and unnecessarily hostile (if there are competence issues, merely informing the user about their existence is unlikely to cause any change).

Control-alt-delete, "this moron" is rather actively aggressive, so I guess you're now even.

I think whether administrative action is needed depends on whether Scope creep is fine with the result of the edits that followed the edit war, or if there is still disagreement about the inclusion of that paragraph. In that case, I'd enforce WP:ONUS (and potentially WP:BURDEN), requiring Control-alt-delete to gain a consensus for the addition on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything you're saying. I admit, I did call him a moron in response to his own tone. I am now finished editing. I have done my best to add good citations, but I would be happy to improve them if needed. I copied some citations from existing citations on existing Wikipedia articles. I have also added 2 new ones from the US military. Please do let me know if you see something I could improve further. Many thanks Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 00:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that @Scope creep claims that this is "his article" and he "doesn't want other people working on it". Tough! That's not keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. I have been a user for probably a decade or two. I rarely edit, but I do not lack the competence. He is far too attached to "his" article. See my talk page for his ridiculous standpoint: User talk:Control-alt-delete - Wikipedia Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"Articles I worked on" is a bit different than "my article", and the indirect ownership claims are a relatively small concern to me in this discussion. I'd be more concerned about the wording "low-quality junk", but at the moment, I primarily wonder about Scope creep's opinion about the current state of the article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is also telling: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive394#c-DovidBenAvraham-2019-08-17T17:08:00.000Z-User:Scope creep reported by User:Lqqhh (Result: both editors advised, discussio Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"I've experienced scope_creep's over-protectiveness of articles" from another user in the same thread Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been dozens of issues with this user previously, including issuing him bans:

scope creep - Search results - Wikipedia Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 01:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Control-alt-delete, enough please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The editor shouldn't be editing articles. They are not competent. The editor edit-warred to restore unsourced, unlinked, non-attributed content twice instead of discussing it when it was reverted, like normal folk. This is egregious and a clear competency issue. Not being able to interact is problematic. Since I stopped doing anti-vandalism work and stopped working in afc/npp/afd and coin, I tend not to check my watchlist too often and it was sheer chance that I looked at it. It would have sat there unsourced even now, if I hand'nt seen it and left a comment about it. Editors who have to be forced to do the correct thing, shouldn't be on here. The content was copied across really quickly and I think the refs haven't been checked, which are a complete mess, which I'll need to fix on Sunday. The articles now reads 1938 stuff, 1945 stuff, back to 1939 stuff. No attempt to integrate the new content. It has bare urls in a fully cited article, hanging sentences with no closing clauses, a main article tag with no section header. "The introduction of Stutthof concentration camp" with no attached context. I don't even know why that is there. No units for the barrels of oil. It is mess. I will need to fix this. Some stuff will be removed. The editors nature is try and force it through. Its Ani the next time and a block recommendation. The comments above are really really shabby. It sadden's me. The editor jumped to try smear me instead of focusing on the content. Its not a laughing matter. I have no time for this editor. 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)

I have tried to add information to the article, as there was nothing in it about their history during WWII. I did try to talk to you about this on your talk page, but you did not want to talk, you reverted continuously instead - whilst I was actively trying to edit it, you forced multiple edit conflicts. You caused the disruption, you appear to have a history of causing disruption, and you continue to cause a disruption. I am not "forcing content in", I am trying to add key information to the article where there is a gaping hole. I would be pleased to have some help with rewording it, and I am keen to see your results on Sunday, so thank you. Please don't think this is a personal attack that I've edited your article, I hold no grudges, I am just trying to improve your article. Relax - life is good! Sincerely, Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 23:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Declined Ordinarily I'd be blocking both editors, but here C-a-D said in their edit summaries they were planning to add cites in the next edit ... which did nothing to deter Scope Creep from reverting within minutes. This is not how to assume good faith.

Scope, not everyone likes to add cites with the text. If someone says they're going to do it in their next edit, give them a little time. Don't revert away like some malfunctioning cyborg. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:104.218.69.202 reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Rachel Cruze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 104.218.69.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238189408 by Bsoyka (talk)"
2. 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238085879 by Bsoyka (talk)"
3. 02:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238085879 by Bsoyka (talk)"
4. 01:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Rachel Cruze."
2. 15:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:104.218.69.202 "Warning: Disruptive editing on Rachel Cruze."

Comments:

I'm also convinced this might be vandalism, especially based on this edit. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Воскресенский Петр reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Already blocked, as noted)

Page: Olga Tobreluts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Воскресенский Петр (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Comment: While I was filing this report, the user was blocked for other violations, but I decided to keep this as a record. - Altenmann >talk 18:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

- Altenmann >talk 18:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 72 hours by Cullen328 for persistently adding unsourced content and making false accusations of vandalism. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:2403:6200:8864:3F0A:D214:1FDF:9873:D95F ; User:2403:6200:8864:3F0A:A017:3E60:F586:E5F2 reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: Range blocked one week)

Page: ...I Care Because You Do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2403:6200:8864:3F0A:A017:3E60:F586:E5F2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Though clearly the same user as 2403:6200:8864:3F0A:D214:1FDF:9873:D95F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]
5. [104]
6. [105] (since notice of report here)

(+ similar IP)

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [109]
5. [110]
6. [111]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [113] and [114] Cambial — foliar❧ 13:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Comments:

• I've blocked the /64 range for one week for vandalism. Unnecessary for me to examine the reported edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Imperfect strategist reported by User:RangersRus (Result: Sockmaster indefinitely blocked)

Page: Indian 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Imperfect strategist (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. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [118]
5. [119]
6. [120]
7. [121]
8. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [124]

Comments:

Comment - user is engaging in obvious sock puppetry, so I reported the sockmaster and all socks to AIV. Jdcomix (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the master and two socks at an SPI report filed by another user, which would have been a better way to go, Jdcomix, than at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  Got it, will note that in the future. Jdcomix (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

User:DrLurve reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126] - note edsum
2. [127] - note edsum
3. [128] - note edsum
4. [129] - note edsum
5. [130] - edsum still assumes bad faith
6. [131] - note edsum
7. [132]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [135]

Comments:

After the 3RR warning, they continued to revert. A user gave them a last warning on their user page and they reverted again 3 minutes after replying to that warning. They have made several more reverts since those. Please note that I think their edsums might potentially need revdelling. They make accusations aganst the BLP subject that go beyond the evidence and are definitely not in good faith. Likewise their contribution on the talk page may need revdelling. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• While they have undoubtedly been edit warring, in addition to the above edit summaries, posts on the article talk page plus these on their user talk page[136][137] suggests a WP:NOTHERE indef should be considered. DeCausa (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Would agree, frankly almost took them to AIV last night before the latest round of spamming. Clearly NOTHERE Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Btw, for any non-UK admin that may look at this, this may help (second definition) for the British slang/tabloid term the user has deployed repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is the latest in a long line of articles where a user has argued that the sex offence convictions must be mentioned in the opening sentence, or better still in the first few words. This is usually rejected, because Huw Edwards has a Wikipedia article as a result of his career as a BBC broadcaster that stretches back many years, not because he was convicted of a sex offence in 2024. I'm also worried about AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
• I have removed one edit summary that directly accused other editors. I'd be fine with others removing more, but that's it from my side for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Sky meme reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Overseas Indonesians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Better use newest data"
2. 15:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC) "better use newest data"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Consecutive edits made from 10:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC) to 22:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Sky meme

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Immediately returning to the exact same two edit wars after coming off a block for edit warring. CMD (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. @Sky meme: if this edit warring continues, the next block is likely to be indefinite. - Aoidh (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Mishradeepanshu027 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked 1 month)

Page: Ranbir Kapoor filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mishradeepanshu027 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238139369 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
2. Revision as of 18:15, 30 July 2024
3. Revision as of 18:36, 30 July 2024 "Undid revision 1237625673 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) It's making the filmography more better and has all the details regarding ranbir kapoor's filmography"
4. Revision as of 18:43, 30 July 2024 "Undid revision 1237628498 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) It's making the filmography more better and has all the details regarding ranbir kapoor's filmography"
5. Revision as of 13:43, 1 August 2024 "Undid revision 1237733673 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) do not act as a journalist so please do not change this I work in wikipedia as software developer, hence you will be banned forever @Krimuk2.0"
6. Revision as of 10:12, 5 August 2024

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:34, 2 August 2024 "Warning: Edit warring on Ranbir Kapoor filmography"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 10:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC) to 09:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Ranbir Kapoor filmography

Comments: Slow burn edit warring by this disruptive trying to game the system. Fails to abide by WP:FILMOGRAPHY guideline and doesn't seem to be interested in discussion / WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD when reverted. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Tried to threaten user User:Krimuk2.0 here, claiming to be a 'software developer' working for the 'wikipedia'. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month for edit warring and WP:THREATEN issues. @Mishradeepanshu027: even if you did in fact work in wikipedia as software developer as was claimed, attempting to weaponize that to intimidate others into allowing you to force a particular edit into an article is unacceptable. - Aoidh (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Herplas reported by User:CFA (Result: Declined)

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

User being reported: Herplas (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 02:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC) to 02:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 02:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238804988 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   2. 02:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238806724 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   3. 02:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238807417 by Fsrvb (talk) stop edit warring or you will be reported"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC) to 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 17:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238179782 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   2. 17:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238176965 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   3. 17:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238176687 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   4. 17:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238176029 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   5. 17:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238175600 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   6. 17:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238029143 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   7. 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238028528 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   8. 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238028209 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   9. 17:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238027228 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   10. 17:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238026859 by Fsrvb (talk)"
   11. 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238026729 by Fsrvb (talk) mass revert as per WP:NPOV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Onam."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Onam "/* Onam and islam - small section */ new section"

Comments:

User is clearly aware of WP:3RR because they warned Fsrvb (the other war-er) of it. C F A 💬 02:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Declined Consecutive edits count as a single revert, and two reverts are not a WP:3RR violation nor (based on the context) edit warring that warrants a block. Aoidh (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

User:82.30.193.7 reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: Blocked 3 months)

Page: British princess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.30.193.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [139]
2. [140]
3. [141]
4. [142]
5. [143]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: [145]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [146]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months for edit-warring and block evasion. Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Celjski Grad reported by User:അദ്വൈതൻ (Result: Reporter blocked 72h)

Page:2018 Kerala floods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

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

Diffs of the User's reverts

1. Revision as of 15:34, 6 August 2024 [147],
2. Revision as of 17:00, 6 August 2024[148],
3. Revision as of 20:46, 6 August 2024 [149]
4. Latest revision as of 22:27, 6 August 2024[150]

These reverts are edit warring over style before the user's third reverting(as listed above) I have notified the user for disruptive editing at user's talk page here Revision as of 20:01, 6 August 2024 [151] Also at the article's talk page under the section which the user started, I have explained the valid cause as the following before the user's third revert WP:MOS specifically states

Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. … Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. When either of two styles is acceptable it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.[c] Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted

see the MOS for the respective footnotes. The entire article uses million in parenthesis. Considering that fact and the WP:MOS guidelines I am again reverting to match the consistency of this article. as seen here Revision as of 19:57, 6 August 2024[152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:(after user's third revert) [153]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [154]

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Diff one is not a revert, it is my initial change. The remaining three are in response to your reverts while the issue is undergoing discussion on the talk page and pending WP:3O. Celjski Grad (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad: Arguably in this instance your first edit was a revert from the state of the article in June when അദ്വൈതൻ changed it to lakh. Putting that aside for the moment, a third opinion has since been provided by IOHANNVSVERVS. In addition all other editors who've commented have supported the "million" position. അദ്വൈതൻ, it seems to me that you are refusing to abide by consensus. I am unwilling to block Celjski Grad in this scenario. I am more inclined to block you for edit-warring against consensus. Please respond here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 user named Celjski Grad

sought third opinion at its platform on Revision as of 22:25, 6 August 2024 [155] and the opinion came at Revision as of 22:26, 6 August 2024[156] at the article's talk page all after Celjski Grad made celjski's third revert(as I listed above). അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@അദ്വൈതൻ: I'm aware of that. I'm asking you if you're willing to abide by the consensus of using million?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 this[157] is the version of the article before the user Celjski Grad made changes. There it is provided as About ten lakh (a million) million within parenthesis concurring with MOS:INDIA. MOS:RETAIN says When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.

What exception do exist to change ten lakh (a million) to a million when this article has strong national ties to Kerala a state within India that uses Indian Numbering System? What ambiguity exists when the Western numbering system is provided in parenthesis? So consensus should have been obtained prior to changes by user Celjski Grad, how does the onus of obtaining consensus fall on me?

As Wikipedia editor, I am supposed to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked അദ്വൈതൻ for 72 hours. I tried to avoid blocking them but they would have none of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

User:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:NebY (Result: page semi-protected, put on 1RR under CTOPS)

Page: Lucy Letby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Staff and infrastructure issues */ This was before the police investigation and even the first arrest of Letby, it's not a recent doubt expressed."
2. 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Are you accusing me of creating that section? Because, if you look, I didn't"
3. 15:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Removed per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper"
4. 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Statistical errors */ remove totally unreferenced section"
5. 15:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Statistical errors */ remove sentence referenced to a forum"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

On 29 July 2024, HouseplantHobbyist was blocked for one week block for edit-warring[158], following warnings on on 27 May 2024[159] and 19 July 2024[160], all for this same article, the only one they edit. They've returned today 6 August 2024, and in less than an hour undone editors' work by deleting existing content four times and also edit-warred to reinsert their own material[161]. NebY (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

User:NebY, those aren't reverts, with the exception of this edit: [162]. So, I've done one revert. Those other edits are edits of existing long-term content, some of which has been there for weeks, they're not reversions of recent edits. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As the warning you issued[163] says and per WP:3RR: Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. On your return today from being blocked, with the edits listed above you deleted content that had been added, restored or substantially edited since you were blocked. NebY (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not true, NebY:

• This removal I made today: [164], was of content you first added on 28 July, nearly two days before I was blocked, and over a week ago: [[165].
• Secondly, the content that I removed here: [166] was essentially the same contentiously sourced material that had first been added back on 24 July, two weeks ago: [167], which remains a point of contention on a live and current talk page discussion: Talk:Lucy Letby#Regarding the Private Eye article. Not only was it necessary to remove while it was still being discussed on talk, but it was now not even referenced at all, a serious problem for a BLP. WP:3RRNO outlines that an exemptions to 3RR includes "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". The removal was also in compliance with WP:BLPRESTORE. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Thirdly, this removal of content [168] sourced to a manifestly unacceptable source on a BLP - a random forum/blog - again comes under the exemption ""Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy".
• Most importantly of all, WP:3RR clearly states: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The edits you've listed above are a mostly series of consecutively saved reverting edits with no intervening edits by another user: [169]. So, one revert. Then, I reverted Sirfurboy as he was mistaken in thinking I'd added that entire section in the first place: [170]. Two reverts. The one left over edit from your list [171] was also then part of that block of consecutively saved reverting edits: [172]. So at most it's two-and-a-half reverts, but in any case all the edits I've made today other than the reversion of Sirfurboy were in one block of attempts to improve and reorganise the article, they weren't clear reversions: [173]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Some of those removals of content were also manifestly needed on a BLP, such as this edit which removed content referenced only to a random forum/blog!: [174]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You deleted content that had been added, restored or substantially edited since you were blocked. NebY (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said above, or even Sirfurboy's own acknowledgement below that my edits did not breach 3RR? HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So if you're defining reversions as just removal of any existing content, you are also edit warring, as on 4 August you did these three reversions within only 20 minutes, then just after the 24 hour limit was up you did a fourth the next day:

1. [175]
2. [176]
3. [177]
4. [178]

HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Although there is not a technical 3RR breach yet today (because your edits were done in two uninterrupted sequences) they are reverts. This [179] reverts content another editor added today. As is this [180]. This [181] reverts to your text from before you were blocked that you added here [182] and when I took it out just now, you immediately reverted it back in. [183] You are aware of WP:ONUS but I reminded you of that on your talk page and asked you to self revert. You did not, but continued removing content (which are all reverts) e.g. [184]. There are others in there. You made a revert to the lead sentence that is good, but is still a revert.

Now Neby's edits you dredge up also count as a single revert for purposes of the 3RR rule. It is not edit warring, it is a sequence of edits. And that would be true here too - there would be technically two edit-sequence reverts, but the reason Neby will have brought this here is because your very first action after a block for edit warring was to rush through the article - the only article you edit - reverting all the material back to the way you had it before your block, without using the talk page - and immediately reverting your material back in again after it was challenged, without any thought of talk discussion. I think there is a prima-facie NOTHERE case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• This removal I made yesterday: [185], was of content first added on 28 July, nearly two days before I was blocked, and over a week ago: [[186].
• Secondly, the content that I removed here: [187] was essentially the same contentiously sourced material that had first been added back on 24 July, two weeks ago: [188], which remains a point of contention on a live and current talk page discussion: Talk:Lucy Letby#Regarding the Private Eye article. Not only was it necessary to remove while it was still being discussed on talk, but it was now not even referenced at all, a serious problem for a BLP. WP:3RRNO outlines that an exemptions to 3RR includes "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". The removal was also in compliance with WP:BLPRESTORE. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
• Thirdly, this removal of content [189] sourced to a manifestly unacceptable source on a BLP - a random forum/blog - again comes under the exemption ""Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy".
• Most importantly of all, WP:3RR clearly states: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The edits listed above are a mostly series of consecutively saved reverting edits with no intervening edits by another user: [190]. So, one revert. Then, I reverted Sirfurboy as he was mistaken in thinking I'd added that entire section in the first place: [191]. Two reverts. The one left over edit from the list [192] was also then part of that block of consecutively saved reverting edits: [193]. So at most it's two-and-a-half reverts, but in any case all the edits I've made today other than the reversion of Sirfurboy were in one block of attempts to improve and reorganise the article, they weren't clear reversions: [194]. HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

So you accept that my edits today do not breach 3RR. In which case, a complaint alleging NOTHERE should be made through the appropriate channels, not on the 3RR noticeboard. You can’t just come on here and acknowledge that the editor is not in breach of the issue the noticeboard exists for, but while you’re here state your hopes that they get blocked for something completely different. And may I remind you Sirfurboy that you previously unsuccessfully reported me here for edit warring and were instead rightly told that you yourself were edit warring and need to stop: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive484#User:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Page protected) HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't comment on that previous case because I was busy. But you will notice that what you called my reverts 3,4 and 5 were, in fact, a single run of 3 edits. They had the effect of changing material, some of which you had put in there, so technically a revert, yes. 6 was not even a revert. So you see that an admin can still determine there is edit warring even when there is no 3RR breach? You were over 3RR there. Maybe not the wisest thing to draw attention to it. And a reminder: I did not report you here in this report. I asked you to self revert in the hope you would avoid a referral here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Overall, the article is full of editors constantly reverting or removing material, and that includes Sirfurboy who was told to stop edit warring himself when he unsuccessfully attempted to get me blocked before: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive484#User:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Page protected). Since then, both Sirfurboy and NebY have continued to make a number of reversions and removals almost every day. In the 24 hours between 2 and 3 August, Sirfurboy made at least 5 removals and reversions of recently-added or deleted content: [195], [196], [197], [198], [199]. The editing on the article is chaotic and Admins would be better-served by protecting it so that only admins themselves can edit the page again for a while like last time when it was determined that there were multiple editors in breach of edit warring: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive484#User:HouseplantHobbyist reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: Page protected) HouseplantHobbyist (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Declined After reviewing the above discussion and the most recent back-and-forth on the talk page (and we do mean back … and … forth), I have decided that the article and its editors would be best served not so much by another full protection but by 1RR and the indefinite semi-protection the talk page already indicated it was under. I will be logging this at CTOPS as well. Daniel Case (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

User:MarksmanRifle reported by User:Wburrow (Result: Blocked 2 weeks; subsequently indefinitely blocked as a sock)

Page: 2026 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1995hoo (talk): Pot kettle black"
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) to 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 18:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1995hoo (talk)"
   2. 18:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 18:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Unnecessarily changing between British and American English on 2026 FIFA World Cup."
2. 18:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also specifically warned about violating 3RR on 3 Aug Wburrow (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

• I later blocked MarksmanRifle indefinitely as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

User:75.161.49.73 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Range blocked 2 months; article semi-protected 3 months)

Page: Koenigsegg Jesko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.161.49.73 (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 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) to 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Jesko Absolut */"
   2. 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Performance */"
2. 19:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 19:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 18:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 15:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Koenigsegg Jesko."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ongoing vandalism to this article by a user under various IP addresses. Has been reverted and warned by multiple editors, but continues the disruptive behavior. Bahooka (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Continues to edit war as shown here. Bahooka (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/75.161.0.0/16, a wide range, which was blocked recently for one month, this time for two months, and because there's another New Mexican range, who doubtless is the same person, I've semi-protected the article for 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• After further thought, I decided I should block the other IP range, Special:contributions/97.123.0.0/16 for 2 months, becaused it's not only this car article that is being disrupted but many others, too many to protect. The 97. range has also been blocked recently for one month, that time for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Holydiver82 reported by User:Nemov (Result: Declined; better handled at AN/I)

Page: The Acolyte (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Holydiver82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [200]
2. [201]
3. [202]
4. [203]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [204]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [205]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [206]

Comments:

Editor has been warned to stop edit warring and find consensus but continues to make contentious edits. Nemov (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

trying to figure out how adamstom97 can make multiple reverts of edits based on no consensus but he is not the one edit warring. apparently he did not like his WP:OR being removed

n Holydiver82 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nemov: Holydiver has reverted only 3x in the last 24 hours; the other revert you listed was on August 5. And I think Holydiver has a point about Adamstom.97. Although they too have not violated 3RR, they have been edit-warring with multiple users over the last several days and rather combative on the Talk page in a discussion with you and another editor who bowed out because they didn't like Adamstom's insistence on being correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you, I even went out of my way to simply change the wording based on the sourced article rather then just revert back to nothing. but Adamstom.97 has basically claimed ownership of the article and if you look at the recent edits pretty much reverts any edit he does not do. also the Nemov even posted in the talk page about the problem with Adamstom.97 taking ownership of the article and not looking for any consensus. the page in question has most often been reverted by Adamstom.97 who refuses to allow any other editors to contribute to the page, as you said some editors just announcing they are leaving rather then fight with him Holydiver82 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23I warned the user over a month ago and the reverted edits go beyond 48 hours on a issue that's currently under discussion. They keep adding back anyway. Nemov (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

the section in question was only added on 8/5. how could you have warned me a month ago about edits the have been made within the last 2 days. again trying to figure out why you have no problem with Adamstom.97 constant reverts, edit warring, and ownership of the article Holydiver82 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You've been warned against edit warring. Something you continue to do while there are discussions going on and you're changing the article without finding consensus. Nemov (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• This is a note to other admins in case someone thinks I'm going to act here: I'm not. I'm not particularly satisfied with Nemov's response or Adamstom.97's lack of one, but I'll let another admin decide what sanctions to impose, if any.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you can look at the edit history on that article and this discussion and think that the editor's actions aren't disruptive. Two experienced editor have warned, reached out to the editor's talk, and engaged the article's talk. They're still ignoring the discussion. As you mentioned, I haven't agreed with Adamstom.97 on some things at that article but at least they're working in good faith. Nemov (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  As was pointed out before. Adam was edit warring not only with me with constant reverts but with multiple other editors. The fact that no one bothered to report him or call him out on it does not make him editing in good faith. Getting other editors to give up and leave an article because of constant reverts is not a good faith edit. Holydiver82 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  it's rather odd how he Adam doesn't bother to say a word yet nemov has taken such an interest in his behalf. Especially after nemov said in the talk page of the article that he agreed that Adam was not acting in good faith and was attempting to take ownership and not find concensus. And now making reverts on behalf of Adam since Adam could not without hitting 3 reverts. Odd Holydiver82 (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Awesome, more accusations. Thanks for helping make my point. Nemov (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  it was not subtle Holydiver82 (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologise for my latest few reverts, it was late and I was growing frustrated. I'm not sure why there are comments here questioning my reasoning for not responding as this thread has not been open for that long. I have been asleep, if you must know.

Holydiver82 has made it clear at the talk page that they are not editing in good faith, insisting on making edits based on their personal bias against the show rather than following Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. They started a discussion to complain about some sources I added to the viewership section, sources that are reliable and have long been accepted across WP:TV articles. When multiple editors explained why these sources should not be removed, Holydiver82 decided to just remove them anyway and I reverted those changes as going against the established Wiki consensus and having no support at the talk page discussion. Again, sorry for my part in the edit warring, I should have taken other steps rather than jumping to reverting so many times. Still, I reject any claims that I feel WP:OWNERSHIP over the article and am happy to justify my edits with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and links to talk page discussions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope I am not intruding in this conversation. Regarding the claim that Adamstom97 behaved as the owner of the "The Acolyte" article, I vehemently disagree. I have been keeping up with the events for a while now. Adamstom97, it seems to me, made the page better. Whenever someone on the article disagreed with their edits, they seemed to always seek consensus. Considering that they never shied away from talking with other editors, I would not classify that as acting like the owner of The Acolyte article. When there is disagreement, it is also the duty of other editors to debate this. And in a calm manner, which, in my opinion, is not what occurred with Holydivers82. Several editors have called out Holydivers82 on several occasions through time. They do not seem to be able to come to an agreement, they disregard the opinions of other editors if they disagree with their own, and it seems they made some personal attacks. Their edit history reveals that they frequently concentrate on "The Acolyte" article. However, they never add anything useful from what I can see; in my opinion, their only goal is to make the article look bad because they hold a grudge against the television series. I doubt they are here to improve Wikipedia, unlike the two other editors they have called out. Good day. Higher Further Faster (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Declined I concur with Bbb23 that while there’s really nothing here for this board, there is still something. Holydiver is showing all the signs of tendentious editing, and really AN/I might be a better place to hash this out. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

User:89.180.44.169 reported by User:Combrils (Result: Page semi-protected for 2 day)

Page: Spanish Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 89.180.44.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [207]
2. [208]
3. [209]
4. [210]

Comments: The user appears to be recurrent in using multiple IPs to add assertions without any reference to support it. He tries to vandalize the articles by constantly pushing his POV. Combrils (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Both Combrils (Reverts: 1, 2 3, 4) and the IP address (reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are edit warring and have blown past the three revert rule. Rather than blocking both of them, I have semi-protected the page for two days. During that time, I would encourage them both to go to Talk:Spanish Navy and discuss it there. A quick internet search reveals that at least some sources refer to Portuguese supremacy from the 15th century until the late 16th century, so this appears to be a genuine content dispute (even if the IP doesn't know how to cite sources) rather than pure vandalism. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think this source is not reliable since it is a PDF presentation and welcome from a company (HHC) that has nothing to do with history studies. I don't see that statement appearing either. However, I think it's a good idea protect the Page, and I'll try to use Talk to address this topic. I recommend also protecting the Galleon and Portuguese Navy pages, as they have also been the subject of the same dispute with the user. Combrils (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  If this is an issue that spans across a few pages, with the editor not communicating, then WP:ANI is probably the place.

  Additionally, @Combrils: Please note that you are supposed to notify the IP of threads like these when they are opened, as the instructions on top of this page state. I have done so for you in this edit. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Baratiiman reported by User:Borgenland (Result: Blocked 3 months)

Page: Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baratiiman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [211]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [212] Reverted the removal by AlexBobCharles (talk · contribs) of an questionable image
2. [213] Reverted the removal by me of a questionable image
3. [214] Reverted the removal by me of a questionable statement
4. [215] Reverted the removal by Kashmiri (talk · contribs) of a questionable statement
5. [216] Flagged by Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs). See 3RR warning below
6. [217] Flagged by Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs). See 3RR warning below

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [219]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [220]

Comments:
User has continued to deny violating 1RR in restoring a reverted image twice within the past 24 hours when warned on their talk page and has resorted to false accusations of WP:OWN. They have also had a history of poorly-worded and translated edits and a WP:IDNHT response to similar warnings. Borgenland (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Having stumbled across this report, I'd like to add some insights:

• The user in question has previously been blocked for edit-warring three times, with the two most recent coming within the last year - the most recent block, in April, was explicitly for another ARBPIA 1RR violation.
• I've interacted with the user's edits more than a few times at the Current Events portal - not to pile on/go off-topic, but their rather inconsistent, sometimes incoherent control of English, combined with the multiple blocks and ongoing denial of violations, has led me to wonder whether WP:CIR takes effect here. A mess created in good faith is still a mess, and in this case it hasn't always been in good faith.

The Kip ^(contribs) 06:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2024_April_11&diff=next&oldid=1218364018&diffonly=1 Baratiiman (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the spelling error before - the problem is that the entire sentence structure is erroneous, and that's been a recurring issue. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Having dealt with the editor in Iran politics related pages (mostly 2024 Iranian presidential election ), I agree with all the accusations said here by User:Borgenland. Issue seems wider than just edit warring AlexBobCharles (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

See this recent response as a demonstration. AlexBobCharles (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Also this user is indeff blocked for disruptive editing on Persian wikipedia ‍‍‍‍AlexBobCharles (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• these are two different infoboxes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1237707326&title=Killing_of_Ismail_Haniyeh

Wow this user is also imagining that i have the time to do sock puppet ip edits just to mess with him/wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&oldid=1239335977 Baratiiman (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Confused as to what you are trying to prove in presenting this latest version of my talk page featuring this reversion of a vandal which I did not attribute to you as seen in the automated summary. But then again it just further proves WP:CIR on your part and a failure to adequately address the issue to which you have been raised here. Borgenland (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Search the word sock "When I first saw the IP's edits I suspected it was a sock of Baratiiman " Baratiiman (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Pity. You could have searched for that revision rather than falsely label the last one I made. It just shows. Borgenland (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Quepor reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet)

Page: 1999 East Timorese crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Quepor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 10:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Sky meme reverted Pineapplethen

This edit war is a continuation of an edit war started by Sky meme, but he/she got blocked for edit warring on another page, so new account Quepor continued the edit war.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Pahamas
2. 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Ckfasdf
3. 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Ckfasdf
4. 06:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Pineapplethen
5. 08:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Toddy1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. A look at User talk:Sky meme shows a series of edit warring notices and two blocks.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 09:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Chaselien reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result:User indeffed as NOTHERE)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Verification"
2. 03:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Verification"
3. 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Verification"
4. 03:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 03:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
6. 03:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Telling the fact, and stand by righteousness against information arbitrary sharing, and the attacks."
7. 03:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
8. 13:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
9. 05:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
10. [221]
11. [222], [223], [224], [225]
12. [226]
13. [227], [228], [229], [230]
14. [231]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [232]
2. 11:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ WP:THETRUTH, WP:VNT"
3. 03:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [233]

Comments:

Hell-bent to insert un-WP:V information inside the article. Their motivation is religious, as shown at [234]. They are a fundamentalist POV-pusher. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been massively attacked by business backed organisations.

I am seeking justice on constantly deleted neutral comments I have made. Chaselien (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory. Besides, if I were the only editor to revert you, admins should give you the benefit of the doubt. But you are largely in WP:1AM territory. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You seek to put the axe at the root of WP:RS and WP:V. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeffed, end of the story. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Already blocked indefinitely by Doug Weller Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

User:T931201 reported by User:Ser! (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: T931201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2025&oldid=1239461233

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 9 Aug, 13:24
2. 9 Aug, 14:29
3. 9 Aug, 15:24
4. 9 Aug, 16:43
5. 9 Aug, 17:18
6. 9 Aug, 22:19
7. 9 Aug, 22:33
8. 9 Aug, 22:35
9. 9 Aug, 23:33
10. 10 Aug, 9:08
11. 10 Aug, 11:17

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by another user and by me

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Repeated attempts here, user reverted through this

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [235]

Comments:
Pretty clearcut 3RR violation, user continued to revert even after being informed of 3RR. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I am assuming that only a short block is needed. I may be wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And to compound this, they've now breached 3RR on this very page, by removing the edit-warring report four times. That's a new one! They've been blocked by an admin for 24 hours, but I do wonder if the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour we've seen really makes them a good fit for the project. @T931201: when your block expires you need to do much better than this, collaborate with your fellow editors and stop edit warring.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

User:T931201 reported by User:Ser! (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: T931201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurovision_Song_Contest_2025&oldid=1239461233

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 9 Aug, 13:24
2. 9 Aug, 14:29
3. 9 Aug, 15:24
4. 9 Aug, 16:43
5. 9 Aug, 17:18
6. 9 Aug, 22:19
7. 9 Aug, 22:33
8. 9 Aug, 22:35
9. 9 Aug, 23:33
10. 10 Aug, 9:08
11. 10 Aug, 11:17

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by another user and by me

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Repeated attempts here, user reverted through this

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [236]

Comments:
Pretty clearcut 3RR violation, user continued to revert even after being informed of 3RR. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I am assuming that only a short block is needed. I may be wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And to compound this, they've now breached 3RR on this very page, by removing the edit-warring report four times. That's a new one! They've been blocked by an admin for 24 hours, but I do wonder if the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour we've seen really makes them a good fit for the project. @T931201: when your block expires you need to do much better than this, collaborate with your fellow editors and stop edit warring.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Allan Nonymous reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: Full protection for three days)

Page: 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1239247585 by Allan Nonymous (talk): This seems to have been effectively a revert of the previous work done on the article, with a WP:POINTy edit summary that does not address the rationale behind the changes made. Will open a talk page section to discuss changes."
2. 04:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "1 is a trivial case of a lot of functions, if you want to add this kind of info, put it in the bottom with the calculations."
3. 04:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "Frankly these are, to put it lightly, obscure facts that do not belong on a number article."
4. 04:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "Rewrote this WP:CRUFT lede in favor of a more mathematically sound one."
5. 03:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2116 (talk): Mass reverting edits with copy paste rationale is generally frowned upon."
6. 20:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Removed yet more WP:CRUFT."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [[237]] by Johnuniq
2. 08:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ reply"
3. 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ ping"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continues to revert war at number articles. With reverts and partial reverts they are now beyond 3RR at 1. They have reverted multiple times in other number articles as well, please see their contributions. Relevant discussions are at AIV and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Help_remove_WP:CRUFT_on_number_articles! and at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TBAN_for_User:Radlrb. The user has received warnings about edit warring on their talk page and wrote to Johnuniq suggesting they did not want to edit war [238] a mere 6 minutes later they reverted again at 1. Polyamorph (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit in question after the concern was raised to me. I am not sure if the three edits in question would qualify for edit warring, but granted, I am not wholly familiar with the full technicalities of edit warring. I would also like to note the user did not attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, and wish he had expressed his concerns there before bringing it up here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I messaged you on your talk page here. It was ignored, you continued reverting instead of accepting my offer of collaboration. You were warned by an administrator that you edits across multiple number articles that you were engaged in edit warring so I don't think your claim of ignorance is credible. Polyamorph (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not claiming ignorance, I am just claiming it can be a little hard to tell where active editing of an article ends and edit warring begins. This is why I am asking for feedback from the editors in question. I am more than willing to collaborate with other editors on the subject. I do apologize if I may have worked a bit to hard and fast. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• This user is still reversing the actions of other editors at 1, see [239]. Note 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. These in part reverts mean this user has flown past WP:3RR. The fact they are still editing this article with this case open is astonishing.Polyamorph (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  I rephrased the lede of the article. I don't believe that counts as reverting per WP:RV. Frankly, this sounds like WP:WIKILAWYERING. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  You deleted content that had previously been restored after you previously deleted it after it was previously restored after you previously deleted it. It doesn't matter if it's an entire article or one sentence. This is pure disruption. Polyamorph (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Changing one sentence in an article, with rationale to which the only major reverts have been editors mass reverting a bunch of collective edits hardly counts as disruptive. The point of WP:3RR is to prevent ping-pong editing and article instability, not small, constructive changes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  There was no consensus of your reverts thereafter. Plus, you continued removing very valuable information, such as this 1; 1 as first in the list of natural numbers is a classically distinguishable point for 1, in fact part of its very definition (which can also be defined starting with 0, depending on convention). I would return it. Radlrb (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  That edit was by another user, and is fine anyway; it just makes the intro of the article more concise. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  True, just noticed. Thank you for relaying this, I thought it was Allan. Radlrb (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  These mass reverts shouldn't continue, in single reverts or continuous relatively small removals, without consensus. On the page for 1, these already technically count way above the limit of 3 reverts, at about 21 in total (in a little less than 2 days, however). Radlrb (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  It sounds like a couple of days of full protection might help reach a consensus on talk. Are you OK with that? Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case: That would be fine with me. Although note they have just made an edit removing 1228 bytes, some of it sourced content. They did write on the talk page but went ahead with the change before getting agreement which is challenging for me because I am likely to need to restore some of the content they have just deleted. There is also the fact that it's not just this article. Polyamorph (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case: I've restored the most recently deleted content. [240] This was removed without agreement. It also removed content which I'd added which built on their own contributions, showing indifference to my good faith attempt at constructive mainspace collaboration. Saying what you're going to do on the talk page and then doing it before anyone has a chance to comment or object is not waiting for consensus. It is continuing the same pattern of piece wise removal of content.Polyamorph (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be perfectly fine with full protect, if it can help with the issue at hand. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  *Comment: To quote their statement, which is relevant given the apparent good-faith in stopping to edit further: I am currently holding off editing any number articles until a consensus is established, the last edit I made at 1 should be the last until we get a good consensus. I hope you can take this as a good faith effort to resolve the issue at hand here 17:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC).

  Their edits earlier today at 1 (a, b, c, d, e) and at 744 (number) (1, 2, 3), where they took out more than 1,200 bytes altogether at 1. Radlrb (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

At 744, he made reversals with slight sarcastic tone, seen in their summary edit, NOEIS, NNOPAGE guidelines. A twofer! 1, which are not even guidelines agreed upon yet, meaning they should not be used strictly; not to mention, it is dismissive and disrespectful. While I agree somewhat with the removal of some of the material from the first edit, what was removed was still done without consensus. Radlrb (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I do not think a "full protection" is merited, since there can be made good additions, rather than deletions of the material at hand. A full protection prevents other editors from adding good material, too. I see why Allan Nonymous might want that, because he is throwing other editors that want to make constructive additions, under the bus. The edits he is referencing at hand, are in fact of their own doing. What do you think of this, @Polyamorph? Radlrb (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Good, I think, is an ultimatum to stop removing information for the time being, and to commit to first seek consensus if they so wish to, as they promised prior. Things that can be added include notable topics regarding the integer 1 that could still be missing, as well as references that some points still need. Rewordings that are harmless can also be acceptable, as long as core information is not lost, but improved in understanding. So far, the few rewordings done at both 1 and 744 have been, for the most part, deletionist without consensus. Radlrb (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

What you are describing sounds like 0RR, which I don’t think I have the authority to impose on this article unilaterally as it is not within a contentious topic.

I suggested a full protection because it seems like it’s just one section of the article that’s currently under discussion, and that would give you guys time to work something out. Edits to other parts of the article, if editors feel they can’t wait, can be handled by admins through the usual medium of requests on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Full protection would be good because it would give the time needed to actually come to an agreement. Polyamorph (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds appropriate, then. Thank you, it is at the very least a solution. Radlrb (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Page protected in full for theee days, per consensus above. Daniel Case (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

User:178.51.222.215 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Blocked)

Page: Leaky gut syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 178.51.222.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Re-added state-of-the-art scientific literature about the leaky gut syndrome"
2. 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "These PubMed-indexed articles are relevant and were not cherry-picked. The fact that the hypothesis is debated is acknowledged in the sentence. If relevant, please add state-of-the-art articles that contradict the hypothesis."
3. 08:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "These PubMed-indexed articles are relevant to the "Leaky Gut Syndrome" page, as they describe the potential link between leaky gut (excessive intestinal permeability), the leaky gut syndrome, and autoimmune diseases."
4. 08:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "These PubMed-indexed articles are relevant, as they describe the potential link between leaky gut, syndromes and autoimmune diseases. Fixed broken DOIs and PubmedIDs."
5. 08:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Backed by 3 relevant PubMed-indexed articles"
6. 07:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Added PubMed-indexed references regarding the potential role of the leaky gut in the pathogenesis of syndromes and inflammatory diseases"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Leaky gut syndrome."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Leaky gut syndrome ≠ Leaky gut */ new section"

Comments:

• Pattern of edits suggests possible LTA? Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 month Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton reported by User:JSwift49 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Imane Khelif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M.Bitton (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. 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
2. 20:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
3. 20:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
4. 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

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

1. 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "One more and you'll break the three-revert rule."

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

1. 13:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments:
Full disclosure: I also reverted four times in the same place (I will say my fourth addition came later and also made changes vs. my last three, specifically removing the part objected to by the reverter in the Talk page.[241][242] I understand if that was not justified). Self-reversion is not possible now as someone has added content to the section.

Now, re. this user, my addition was relatively noncontroversial (a sentence describing a meeting between the PM of Italy and IOC President that occurred as a result of Khelif's fight), well-sourced and not a WP:UNDUE violation given its notability/proportionality. The editor's justification for the reversions was a talk page discussion (Talk:Imane_Khelif/Archive_1#More_RS_reporting_on_Italian_PM_comments) that occurred before the meeting even took place, and which was about the Italian PM's public opinion statements. Thus I do not believe it applied to my content, and I argued as much (see "Meloni again" [243] section).

Content removal policy guidance I read stated that "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless:... The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful". [244] No arguments about the potential harm were ever raised by the user in Talk. Reversion four times clearly did not meet the BLP exception of "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". It was thus, I believe, unjustified in this case.

I had raised concerns about sealioning by this user and I believe they apply here. For example in the "Meloni again" [245] discussion they asked "What's that got to do with Khelif and why should the opinion of a politician (an unreliable source as far as athleticism is concerned) belong in her article?" four times, even after responses to the question by myself and another editor. [246][247][248][249]. (In one response I questioned this editor's good faith; [250]. It was a mistake on my part as I should have focused on policy, and I have struck it.)

Throughout the "2nd lead paragraph: "public scrutiny" vs. "misinformation"" discussion,[251] the user asked some variation of "what did the public scrutinize" five times in quick succession in the same thread: [252][253][254][255][256]. They also opposed the use of a term from five major reliable sources as "cherry picking". [257][258] JSwift49 13:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Content removal policy states that "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless.. there is no such policy and the OP has been around long enough to know that and to avoid their repeated violations of the WP:ONUS policy, in a WP:BLP article to boot.

 Note: this is clearly retaliatory report (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:JSwift49_reported_by_User:TarnishedPath_(Result:_) for context). M.Bitton (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Good day this is not retaliatory, given that you have not filed anything against me. Will clarify re. content removal. JSwift49 13:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• As JSwift49 states, they too violated 3RR. They and M.Bitton are warned that if they continue to edit-war at the article, whether with this material or other material, they risk being blocked without notice. My advice: stay on the Talk page and away from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Works for me. I know this is about edit warring and not sealioning, but is this also the proper place to share concerns about sealioning, or where is? JSwift49 13:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Asking such questions while, at the same time, fully participating in an open ANI report about the subject doesn't look good. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  @JSwift49: It's possible to sealion without edit warring and it's possible to edit war without sealioning so, no. @M.Bitton: The ANI discussion is a complaint about the subject of this report, true, but it's a complaint about you all the same. You've both been warned, any further reverts will probably result in blocks whether or not they're strictly 1RR/3RR violations, and there's no point to any further discussion here. City of Silver 16:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Silvertiger1092 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: Silvertiger1092 (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 23:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC) to 00:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 23:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239698850 by Zefr (talk) Yes, i used one blog, and i also used one other website that was used in a citation on another wikipedia page. Please check the wikipedia page on "Mezban"."
   2. 00:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
   3. 00:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
2. 23:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239695352 by Coralwaves84 (talk) Please pick on other people articles which have no citation. My source is very reliable and at least i have a source."
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC) to 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239690046 by Zefr (talk) The source is super reliable and accurate, please check it for yourself."
   2. 22:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
4. 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239686282 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC) to 21:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
   2. 21:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* South Asia */"
6. 04:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Given citation is not accurate and does not match, plus information is not relevant with Bengali cuisine, as you are talking about U.K., not Bengal."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• User was warned and read the 3RR warning, but continued to change disputed text and inadeqaute sources. Zefr (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• talk page topic, but with no participation by user. Zefr (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Pizzigs reported by User:LilAhok (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Doping in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pizzigs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[259]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 9 Aug, 20:48
2. 9 Aug, 20:50
3. 10 Aug, 06:41
4. 10 Aug, 09:31
5. 10 Aug, 11:48
6. 10 Aug, 20:45

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by 10 Aug 07:38

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [260]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [261]

Comments:
The user resorts to personal attacks WP:NOPA and labeling to justify their edit warring and neglect of the talk page. Also, uses personal labels to dismiss opposing views. WP:BATTLEGROUND - Engages in battlegound behavior. Comments for edits are very aggressive and combative.

User has demonstrated edit warring behavior on a different article:World Anti-Doping Agency 4 edits in less than 24 hours.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doping in China, WADA, USADA, Doping in the United States for more context on the issues in question and the group of editors seeking to undermine the veracity and neutrality of these articles by pushing a one-sided version of the ongoing WADA vs USADA conflict. Pizzigs (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

[262] talk page that addresses users concerns, but refuses to engage in consensus building. Uses labels to dismiss talk page. Users edits are not neutral. User is copying and pasting same info across several articles. Nevertheless, 3 revert rule was violated. LilAhok (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Both Pizzigs and MingScribe1368 (talk · contribs) are Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. - Aoidh (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User:JSwift49 reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Warned)

Page: Imane Khelif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JSwift49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Second-round fight against Angela Carini */ Description of meeting taking place between Meloni and Bach with none of her opinions (opinions should still be added, waiting for talk)"
2. 20:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239675803 by M.Bitton (talk) One more and you'll break the three-revert rule."
3. 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239674326 by M.Bitton (talk) That post was about Meloni's comments, not that she called a meeting with Bach, which is more notable. The fight prompted a head of state to attempt to influence Olympic policy, not just angry complaints."
4. 20:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239673846 by M.Bitton (talk) The fight caused the head of state to meet the IOC President, that is noteworthy and not controversial. It's not a random celebrity with no stake"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Imane Khelif."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Meloni again */"

Comments:

Editor is edit warring to their preferred version, ignoring WP:ONUS (which has been explicitly pointed out to them in article talk) and WP:BLPRESTORE. Editor has now passed WP:3RR. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note this thread at ANI.

I don't understand the point of warning JSwift49 at 02:40, 11 August 2024 and then 10 minutes later reporting them at 3RR/N - was that a "warning" or pointless paperwork? In the meantime, JSwift49 made no edit to Imane Khelif article or talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That they warned another editor "One more and you'll break the three-revert rule" in the edit summary of their third revert and then went on to piss all over 3RR themselves 4 hours later speaks for itself. Regardless, the WP:ANI thread existing does not preclude action here first. That's entirely up to the decision making of the reviewing admin. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it's up to the reviewing admin, who will likely take into account that there was another editor in the edit war, M.Bitton, who made 8 (eight) non-consecutive reverts in less than 24h (not counting a self-reverted revert), from 00:25, 10 August 2024 to 20:23, 10 August 2024‎. Why did you not report M.Bitton as well? The reviewing admin may also take into account that stonewalling and incivility are likely to have heated up the environment, as noted by multiple editors (e.g., here and here).

In my view, the differences between editors on Imane Khelif are so minor that this edit war seems incomprehensible. No one is trying to use that BLP to push a particular agenda, and editors seem to agree on the fundamentals of the case and argue over small details, almost irrelevant trivia (should we mention "public scrutiny over eligibility" alongside "misinformation"? should we mention Meloni's lobbying?). So I think this report should be enough to prevent further disruption without having to sanction anyone - the report could work as the "warning" that was missing - especially if the 1RR is installed, as requested at ANI. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reported @M.Bitton; I do additionally have concerns about sealioning in this case which I have outlined below.

I agree with @Gitz6666 in that these changes are rather trivial. I believe too low a threshold has been applied for editors challenging material in this article. As WP:Content removal policies say: My understanding from WP:Content removal essay was: "It is preferable that good-faith additions remain in the article pending consensus, unless:... The article is a biography of a living person, and the material is potentially harmful". And the BLP reversion exception deals with "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced".

That being said, I acknowledge my earlier change to the lead should have sought consensus (have rectified the matter). I had thought that the word "scrutiny" was such a noncontroversial change given that the AP and several other major sources used it. JSwift49 13:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As WP:Content removal policies say.. there is no such policy (this is another another baseless claim of yours to justify your persistent violations of the WP:ONUS policy, in a WP:BLP article to boot. M.Bitton (talk) M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Clarified ^ thanks for the catch! JSwift49 13:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Of note, the editor has recently edited at Special:Diff/1239760386, after being notified of this discussion. Notably their first edit after notification was not to remedy their breach of WP:3RR by self-reverting, but to start casting aspersion against another editor that they were edit warring against. TarnishedPath^talk 11:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I just now sat down to my computer to look at all this, as a matter of fact :) now I'd be happy to revert though someone else has already added their own content, and a majority of people in the talk currently support it. JSwift49 11:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you might have lost your chance at self-reverting then. That's a risk when you engage in 3RR violations. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that my fourth revert was different in that it addressed your concern (this was not doing the same thing four times) I had thought it was not on the same level. If not, I apologize. [263][264] JSwift49 13:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a very disingenuous apology (given the retaliatory report that you started below). M.Bitton (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@JSwift49 please do yourself a favour and read WP:REVERT and note that a partial revert (however partial) counts as a revert. TarnishedPath^talk 23:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I've warned JSwift49 in the report they filed below.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Hawkedin reported by User:Seasider53 (Result: Partially blocked for 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [265]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [266]
2. [267]
3. [268]
4. [269]

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

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

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

Comments:
I gave the user time to respond on the Ibrox Stadium talk page, but they have made 12 edits (at the time of writing) since the request for input was made. Seasider53 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from making edits to Ibrox Stadium. For posterity's sake, the actual version reverted to can be found here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Żyrafał reported by User:Northern Moonlight (Result: )

Page: Julia Szeremeta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239843002 by Northern Moonlight (talk) might be even a thousandth, as long as it's following the rules. The information is irrelevant for the biography and can be checked easily by clicking on the link that is there specifically for that purpose. If that was a paper encyclopaedia, then this information would be relevant."
2. 22:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239842484 by Northern Moonlight (talk) that's what the link is for"
3. 13:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1239599617 by Northern Moonlight (talk)"
4. 15:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238561509 by 95.160.21.185 (talk) not necessary, it’s just a list. She was an independent person, not a party member"
5. 15:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238562890 by 95.160.21.185 (talk) not valid, independents are not far right"
6. 15:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1238564953 by 95.160.21.185 (talk) still not necessary, if someone wants to read about the party, they can click on the link"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ new section"

Comments: Two separate occasions of 3RR edit warring. There is also another diff (21:06, 8 August 2024) outside of the 24-hour window.

I was about to start a discussion on the talk page, but the user admitted that they are willing to do this “a thousandth” time so clearly they are not willing to stop.

• 3RR refers to more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Żyrafał hasn't gone over 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • My apologies. I updated my comment. Northern Moonlight 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm only willing to keep the article clean. There is no reason for that irrelevant information to be there. The sole purpose of the link is so the reader can check what kind of party is that. If you don't agree with that then maybe remove all the links and write all the info in the article? I'm 100% sure that no one would even think of adding that info if she ran in the elections from any other list. Żyrafał (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also do not spread lies. I clearly stated "it might be a thousandth, as long as it's following the rules". Is reverting a trolling or vandalism more than three times against the rules? Żyrafał (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism on English Wikipedia has a very specific definition, please see also WP:ATWV and the last paragraph of WP:IUC. Northern Moonlight 03:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean that your edits were vandalisms, sorry. Żyrafał (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The article subject is a political candidate representing a minor Polish party that is fairly unknown to the average English Wikipedia reader. There are sources explicitly linking her and the political position of her party (The Guardian, The Telegarph, The Polish Tribune). Northern Moonlight 02:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem are not citations, but the fact that the political stance of the party is irrelevant and can be easily checked by clicking on the link (which is the sole purpose of those link on Wikipedia). Even in the articles about politicians such things are not mentioned because there is a link for that. If it was any other party, no one would care about that and no one would add that information. Żyrafał (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, those were local elections where the party is much less relevant than the specific person. Żyrafał (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Arberiunumk reported by User:Demetrios1993 (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Illyrian invasion of Epirus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arberiunumk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:02, 10 August 2024

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:22, 11 August 2024
2. 20:26, 11 August 2024
3. 20:29, 11 August 2024; 20:33, 11 August 2024; 20:34, 11 August 2024
4. 21:34, 11 August 2024
5. 00:53, 12 August 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: A {{uw-3rr}} warning template was posted in the talk page of User:Arberiunumk at 17:36, 11 August 2024. I should also add that User:Arberiunumk received numerous other warnings on 11 August, about this and other disputes; we know they read the warnings because they removed them from their talk page. Check the history of User_talk:Arberiunumk.

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

Comments: I should also add that User:Arberiunumk is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Arbe21_21; their case is currently awaiting administration and close (SPI case). Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:John Bois reported by User:107.116.165.18 (Result: )

Page: Nauvoo Expositor
User being reported: John Bois (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [273] - my removal of content, with a summary explaining why, and a concurrent talk page conversation explaining

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [274]

1. [275]

1. [276]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [278] - they were aware of the talk page topic around the content removal, and actually removed my comments there.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [279] [280]

Comments:
I apologize, but the template cut off some of my submission. After two reverts on the page, I warned JB. He asked editor Bahooka for urgent help - [281] - he had been warned for edit warring. Bahooka immediately picks up the stick and reverts, without noticing the talk page, or my edit summary. John Bois was aware of the existing talk page commentary about this, but removed it as well. Bahooka then templated me saying I hadn't explained my edit, oddly. I wasn't sure if this or ANI would be a better venue. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What he stated is an utter lie. I asked Bahooka for help after they undid the IP user's changes and after the IP user gave me a bogus warning for engaging in an 'editing war.' I also told the IP user he needs consensus to remove that much from the article, and yet he wasn’t able to provide it. This is also not to mention the fact that this edit was his second edit on this Wikipedia. This IP user is nothing but a troll. I request that his bogus warning be removed from my page and for him to be blocked from editing. John Bois (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You may ask @Bahooka, @Raladic, and @Chold that I have absolutely no intention of doing anything wrong, my only intention is that people like this IP user follow the rules of Wikipedia. John Bois (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

John Bois, you might want to rephrase that "What he stated is an utter lie." The IP wrote "John Bois was aware of the existing talk page commentary about this, but removed it as well." You did indeed remove the IP's post to the talk page thread without any explanation [282]. The IP informed you of this on your talk page. Meters (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The IP user removed a large section of the page without any consensus. I thought that wasn’t allowed. If it is allowed, I’ll happily apologize to the IP user and go on my way. John Bois (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

How does that excuse your inappropriately blanking the IP's talk page post?

Now being discussed at WP:ANI: [283] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

As for the edit warring report, there is no 3RR violation here by John Bois. The material is under discussion on the talk page but the IP completely blanked the article section three times. it was restored three times, but only two of the supplied diffs were for edits by John Bois. The third was by user:Bahooka. Meters (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Correct, I'm reporting this not because it's a clear violation of 3RR, but because [284] before Bahooka's revert looks like WP:TAGTEAM from here. For what its worth, Bahooka doesn't seem like a random choice, in fact Bahooka has been involved in conversations about this source on this same page for over a decade - [285]. A convenient person to tag in. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I restored the blanked content at 2:36, preceding the request for help at 2:40. Bahooka (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

IP, it's getting difficult to WP:AGF in you here. You opened a 3RR report. You listed only 3 reverts, and by 2 different users. You admit that you know it's not a 3RR violation. It wouldn't be 3RR violation even if they had all been made by the same person. And since you made your edit three times, you are closer to edit warring than the person you reported. I pinged Bahooka because they were the one who made one of the edits you listed in your diff. Are you suggesting that I had some other motive with your A convenient person to tag in? And suggesting that there is tag teaming going here is really pushing it. It has no place in this report, and I suggest that you retract that as a personal attack. Meters (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've struck the relevant section of the text. After reading how things went down at ANI, I now realize it's unlikely that JB was trying to evade 3RR - he is just very early in his editing career. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not accusing of anything here, and I do apologize for my earlier comments, but I do have a slight concern. Your first edit was yesterday, and with the inference from 'He is just very early in his editing career,' I suspect you have two accounts, and if you do you are not behaving in good faith, as policy requires you to disclose both accounts. I have to admit I didn’t know what 'edit warring' and '3RR' were until last night. It is also correct that I am still in my early stages of learning how to edit. John Bois (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, not accusing you of anything, but I do find it irregular that you are editing this well on your first try. When I was trying to report you to the admins, I struggled with it, and the fact that you seem to know all the rules on your first day of editing also casts more doubt. I do believe you have a second account, (which should be looked into) but I’m not here to contest that. I’ll accept whatever my punishment is, and just remember next time to act in good faith toward new editors. We are still trying to get the hang of it, as you can see from the amount of questions I have asked experienced editors on my talk page. I believe having two accounts should be looked into. John Bois (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been editing as an IP for over ten years. IP assignments last from hours to weeks. Few people have access to static IPs these days. See WP:HUMAN. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, but why don’t you creat a account at this point to avoid the hassle? John Bois (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:HUMAN. For example, I've seen users on GitHub that immediately delete their account after they make a comment. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In the area where you reverted me, church members can be excommunicated for questioning the statements of church leaders. In some physical places, editing about certain topics could land someone in jail. Many want avoid sharing more (identifiable and potentially sellable) info with the WMF than is required. Many see having an account as beneficial, others see it as a potential liability. Different needs for different editors. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:TVAroundtheWorld reported by User:Magical Golden Whip (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: 2003 in British television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Stop fucking saying unsourced"
2. 14:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Stop fucking saying unsourced"
3. 14:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Thomas made a comeback"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of programs broadcast by the Nick Jr. Channel."
2. 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been blocked for adding poorly unsourced information and back edit with edit warring. There also appears to be a past edit warring over the last few days including here [286]. In addition edit warring here [287]. Edits have been reverted in the past and keeps insisting on adding the information in, some include [288] and here [289]. In addition adding sear words to edit summaries and talk page [290] Magical Golden Whip (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Aoidh (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note Updated to a checkuser block. Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Ellis Island Rejects reported by User:AntiDionysius (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: Ellis Island Rejects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "edit made due to incomplete information missing contribution puerto ricans made to the creation of bboying"
2. 14:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "edited because description of the origin of breaking was inadequate and misleading.included reference."
3. 14:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Edit to an accurate description of the origin of said practice"
4. 14:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Edit to an accurate description of the origin of said practice"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Breakdancing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User:King Ayan Das reported by User:Nomian (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Non-cooperation movement (2024) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: King Ayan Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ I edited according "The Independent" and "NYTimes" source not just state what the source says"
2. 17:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ As per AJ, "Al Jazeera reached out to sources in some of these districts and discovered that the attacks on Hindu households were not driven by religious identity but by political affiliations." and below ‘Attacks politically motivated, not communal’ heading is just from the staement from leter mentioned singel obderver's statement. And why replaced reliable "The Independent" source" with a local Bangladeshi source?"
3. 16:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ if "many" used in "The Independent" then "Al Jazeera" also reached out to sources in "some" of these districts(out of 20 districts while 52 districts are affected)"and if The Independent and NYT are quoting the same single observer then Al Jazeera is also quoting the single observer"
4. 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ "The Independent " also spoke to a few Hindu families in Bangladesh"
5. 14:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ most attacked Hindus were with non political background as per "The Independent" and the "NYTimes" article and delete Dhaka Tribune source to fix overcite"
6. 14:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ most attacked Hindus were with non political background as per "The Independent" and the "NYTimes" article"
7. 13:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1240090709 by Za-ari-masen (talk)come to Talk page , don't revert reliable-sourced information without discussion"
8. 11:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Violence against Hindus */ as per The Independent " and NYTimes sources most of them are ordinary Hindus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Non-cooperation movement (2024)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC) "/* King Ayan Das edits */"

Comments:

The user has been edit-warring with multiple editors to restore a POV and potentially WP:OR content along with several prose issues. The edits are mainly concerned with changing the particular sentence "According to most observers, most of these attacks were politically motivated, as the victims were primarily Awami League leaders, activists, and police while many Hindus with no political affiliation were also attacked." into "According to most observers, some of Hindus whose homes were attacked may be directly involved in Awami League politics, but most of them were ordinary Hindus with no political affiliation." Multiple editors have raised concerns about their edits as it is seen here. Still, they are not willing to listen. Mentionable, there is also an ongoing misinformation campaign on India media pertaining to this event as detailed in the article. Nomian (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Nougat10 reported by User:Bearian (Result: Warned)

Page: Korenevo, Korenevsky District, Kursk Oblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nougat10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

first revert here, second revert here, and Third revert here. I was previously an admin, and have been an editor for 17 years. I rarely use this board, but I think this is becoming necessary. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC) Due to editing issues, I accidentally placed the report here, not on the actual bottom. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Rather than reporting users for removing fabricated narratives, editors should check and recheck their input and not use unreliable sources for edits.

There is a trend for Russian villages being changed to Ukrainian villages by users without any evidence whatsoever.

I'm not an experienced Wikipedia inputer and only learnt of the edit warring policy today.

The guy who reported me has done exactly the same as me and changed my edits 3 times! Nougat10 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe I have added temporary protection from vandalism, could someone with more experience confirm that His R done this correctly Please. Nougat10 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

1) I posted once. I reverted twice. Then I stopped.

2) The editor has seven years’ experience on here, so to claim not to know about an essential policy is untenable. If you’re here for seven years, you should know about the policy.

3) I never wrote that this village was part of Ukraine. Check the diffs.

4) I originally tagged the source, Newsweek, as potentially untrustworthy, but removed it on second thought. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I may have been here since 2018 but that was my 2nd edit.

I'm not here to argue with you. My first edit was removed as it didn't have a source other than personal family history (nothing to do with Ukraine in 2018).

I deleted your addition as it was incorrect. If I had known about "talk" at the time I would have messaged you. A learning curve for me, I'm just a fat retired farmer in Herefordshire, England.

I don't like confrontation so I'll probably steer clear of editing for another 7 years😬 Nougat10 (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Nougat10 is currently not allowed to edit about this topic (WP:GS/RUSUKR) and has now been informed about this restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your censorship Nougat10 (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I was only deleting fake news from bearian Nougat10 (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  At least I achieved my aim and the fake History of Korenevo that bearian edited cannot be reinstated Nougat10 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is no page protection that would prevent Bearian from enforcing the restriction by re-adding the material, and it would not be considered edit warring. However, of course a consensus on the article's talk page would be preferable, especially given that a discussion is already running at Talk:Korenevo, Korenevsky District, Kursk Oblast § 2024 incursion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  I got it. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Penpengusa10 reported by User:CambrianCrab (Result: blocked from article and talk page, three months)

Page: Black people in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Penpengusa10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [291]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [292] 02:53 August 9
2. [293] 10:08 August 9
3. [294] 23:02 August 9
4. [295] 00:18 August 12
5. [296] 03:42 August 12
6. [297] 13:01 August 12
7. [298] 09:09 August 13

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [299]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [300]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [301]

Comments:
This is a spill-over of the Yasuke fiasco. I asked Drmies for help with this page on Friday (Aug 9) but it doesn't seem to have done much and it seems like it's crossed over into clear edit-warring at this point. CambrianCrab (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• OK by now this is pretty obvious. CambrianCrab, I want you to know that you also need to hold back: reticence is good. Fortunately for you, Gitz6666 and User:Toweli agree with you, and both also pointed at the RfC/consensus. The editor is P-blocked from the article AND from the talk page, because that combative attitude is uncollegial. If they want to protest this, I suggest they inquire about the talk page block first, which might give them an opportunity to prove they can be a productive editor in a collaborative environment. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh okay, thank you for letting me know! I kept going back and forth on whether this was an exemption under #4, but I'll lean more heavily on the side of caution from now on. For the future, would you suggest I file a report here (or elsewhere) sooner? CambrianCrab (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Oh duh, I just remembered I'm supposed to ask them to self-revert to the stable version when it starts getting close to edit-warring and it's not a clear exemption. Sorry again, the RfC was making me overthink it, won't happen again (and thank you again for your help, you were super quick with responses and it's very appreciated) CambrianCrab (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hello,

  > The editor is P-blocked from the article AND from the talk page

  There is a misunderstanding in your observation:

  My editing on Black People in Japan was done independently apart from "Yasuke fiasco".

  I haven't participated in the WP:WAR of Yasuke NOR Talk:Yasuke, thus I haven't been P-blocked either from the article or from the talk page of Yasuke.

  The reason why I haven't participated in there was already told here.

  I will submit unblock requirement for this soon. Penpengusa10 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)