Fort Towson

Page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Babylon_Bee%7CThe Babylon Bee
User being reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Margen74%7CMargen74

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&oldid=1197987911

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=1199233040&oldid=1197987911
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=next&oldid=1199321184

I'd also point out that this user has engaged in unconstructive editing recently on this page (sorry I'm not sure how to do diffs): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=1196423488&oldid=1190100943 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Babylon_Bee&diff=next&oldid=1196454685

This isn't quite relevant here, but I'd also point out that he appears to have mimicked another user's profile page, including some access abilities I don't think are correct. His page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Margen74 Page he copied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seawolf35

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASquatch347&diff=1199321689&oldid=1199233624

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

Post on Margen's page for this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Margen74#Edit_Waring

Discussion on Seawolf's page about profile being stolen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seawolf35#Margen74

Squatch347 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit of this report, they are WP:NOTHERE given their behavior thus far and should most likely be indeffed. I have notified them of this discussion. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

They now attempted to remove the section on my talk concerning them. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Concealed carry in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neutrality (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. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

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

Comments:

I am a Wikipedia editor and have attempted to add information to the above-linked Wikipedia article regarding recent studies on firearm usage and a correlation to crime rates in the United States. I have cited objective, governmentally-approved studies and set of conclusions to my edit in order to prove what has been found through research, however, the above-mentioned user has taken it upon themselves to revert my useful edits to the page while claiming that I derive my statistics from a supposed election-denying extremist and hyperlinking me to partisan webpages regarding the personal political opinions of this individual. I am requesting that an administrator or another Wikipedia moderator of sorts looks into this situation and resolves it promptly, as I do not appreciate having my fact-checked, cited, and verifiable work removed at the prompt desire of a random, partisan individual. UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Being new to leaving reports, I seem to have made an error and neglected to insert the link to the Wikipedia article in question. Here is the article: Concealed carry in the United States, and the name of the user being reported is "Neutrality." UnregisteredSkeptic (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

No discussion on the article's talk page. No edit warring notification to other user. Only two reverts by user:Neutrality. OP has now made the same edit a third time (and been reverted by a different editor. There is no edit warring here by Neutrality. UnregisteredSkeptic, discuss the edit on the article's talk page as has been requested, and don't restore the edit again. Meters (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Comparison of EM simulation software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Banner (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. 27 January 2024 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
2. 27 November 2023 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
3. 18 August 2023 Removed edits because there was no Wikipedia article related to that software package
4. 20 September 2020 Added requirement to list that they must have 'their own article on Wikipedia'. He labeled this 'Clarified criteria for inclusion of software on the page.'
5. 17 Jun 2020 Removed edits because they were 'without a Wikipedia article' on them.
6. 17 November 2019 Removed edits because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
7. 10 September 2019 Removed programs 'without article, deemed not notable.'
8. 2 September 2019 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
9. 20 December 2018 He removed edits 'without own article' that he deemed 'not notable'.
10. 5 December 2018 Removed edits because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
11. 23 October 2018 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
12. 9 June 2018 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.
13. 10 October 2014 Removed edits that he considered 'not notable' because there was not a Wikipedia article on them.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [5]

Comments: It is possible The Banner believes that the Wikipedia definition of 'notable' means that something has to have an article on Wikipedia. This is not the definition of notable which I found on Wikipedia.

The repeated behavior of deleting others contributions, and telling them to 'write an article' doesn't achieve the goals of Wikipedia. It seems they are trying to control the content of that page, whether it is an innocent misunderstanding or not. And it certainly isn't helping increase the value of information on that page.Re34646 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSC. But IMHO, this is retaliating for this removal of a non-notable package, added by Re34646. The Banner talk 00:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199946313 by Soetermans (talk) Your messing with the 2022 census results and combining it with a 2015 survey which soesn't even talk mention tge 86% figure and this is being discussed join the discusstion and stop reverting."
2. 09:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199917903 by Yung Yohan (talk) Stop messing with the census the survey doesnt even talk abpit irreligion as not religious is not about irreligion and tge survey is from gallup is older then the census."
3. 00:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199785140 by Yung Yohan (talk) Your removing the census results with a older survey stop that."
4. 21:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199712866 by Yung Yohan (talk) The 2022 census is more credible then a 2015 census and not religious is not linked to" irreligion""
5. 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199595094 by Soetermans (talk) The gallup survey doesn't state that it says 0% or less than 1% said they were atheist while the 2022 census said 91% of the country is muslim not 86%"
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) to 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199338520 by Yung Yohan (talk)"
   2. 12:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199336553 by Yung Yohan (talk) The survey doesn't state that"
   3. 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 18:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "BRD"
3. 09:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
4. 09:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All I did was revert the edits the other user made as they used a 2015 survey and removed the 2022 census results for only Islam as the 2022 census 91% said they were muslim while the gallup survey mentions no religion by name as just says 93% said they were religious, 5 said they were not religious and 0% said they were atheist and 1% did not reply. The user then changed the figure of the 91% from the 2022 census and changed it to 86% which is not mentioned in the survey and no religion was mentioned by name.

When I corrected it you reverted those changes and now the other user has done the same a discussion was started on their userpage which they did reply to but still made the edit and you didn't even leave a warning for them.

I read the rules now I wasn't aware if I get punished I see its my fault I should have discussed it but I did leave edit summaries I thought that was discussing the issue if not I get it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inteqaam (talk • contribs) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC) 

You just keep on going though. Perhaps you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, but Competence is required. Stop reverting. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

You choose not to engage in the talk pages of yung yohan or the talk page they clearly are leaving disruptive edits by removing the 2022 census results and using 2015 survey which doesn't mention islam or any other religion. Inteqaam (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for a period of 72 hours. Continuing to revert after being reported to this board is rarely an optimal idea. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of Pokémon anime characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Master106 (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. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:

Can you please work with me instead of just reporting me? Master106 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two weeks Master, I don't see how anyone can work with you. After reviewing the lengthy, infuriatingly formatted talk page discussion I could not block you fast enough—no, wait a minute, I didn't even get finished before I'd had enough of your IDHT, tendentious behavior to make me want to scream at my monitor. Your constant "logic" that just because a source does not explicitly include Chloe as a supporting character does not mean we can't say she's a protgaonist (and as Sergecross73 accurately points out, anyone who claims a work has 19 protagonists clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word "protagonist") is, well, some kind of clearly identified and named logical fallacy that I can't be bothered (because your editing bothers me enough already) to look up right now. And as Serge further points out, if you were right, you would have found a reliable source proving your point long ago.

However, your handling of your own conduct is even worse. There's this disingenuous non-apology apology for what you concede was edit warring (and for someone already blocked twice for edit warring, there can be no claim to having done so "accidentally"), your repeatedly stated longing for "a consensus we can all agree on together" (redundant wording in any event) when it is as plain as day that consensus is against you and that what you really want behind all that polite, civil language is everyone to see things your way, and the edit summary behind your most recent revert: "Please don't revert it and instead make it better". You do not make it better by consistently reverting to your preferred version ... an edit summary like that is practically a guilty-as-charged confession to edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Deaths in 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */"
2. 14:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199623449 by Alsoriano97 (talk)"
3. 09:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */"
4. 00:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */ It is NOT a modified description, it is the EXACT job title (where "of State" is optional)"
5. 12:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people"
6. 11:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1199198324 by Renewal6 (talk) "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names""
7. 10:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC) "/* 25 */ /* 25 */ Sanath Nishantha ... "Minister of State for Water Supply" is the NAME of the office. It is not "self-aggrandisement" to capitalise it, most of all because he is dead so anything done here cannot be self-anything."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user made an eighth ([12]) and ninth ([13]) revert after being reported here. Renewal6 (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from editing Deaths in 2024. The filer and respondent both participated in Talk:Deaths in 2024#Capitalization or non-capitalization of job titles, where there was clear pushback against capitalizing the title. Even after this attempt to resolve on talk, and pushback against capitalizing had been made clear by multiple editors, respondent continued to twice revert to respondent's own preferred version on 28 January (i.e. the eighth and ninth reverts given by Renewal6 in their comment above). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Category:Redirects to an article without mention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: C. A. Russell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:56, 28 January 2024 – good thing this abomination is a category page and not actual policy; it's now clear why RFD has turned into a gamified mess over the last year or so...
2. 02:42, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200203580 by Tavix (talk) revert #1
3. 12:08, 29 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200234996 by Tavix (talk) revert #2 of unexplained revert for page not in alignment wrt actual redirect policy and guidelines
4. 01:51, 30 January 2024 – Undid revision 1200615340 by Hey man im josh (talk) this page is not a policy page, and this change is not a policy change; this edit is descriptive, and what's described here is already "implemented"—not a proposal or a wouldn't-it-be-nice prescription

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They actually issued me an edit warring warning. I felt if I issued it back it would come as retaliatory. I only noticed they were edit warring after receiving their warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They were told to discuss the changes three times. Once by Tavix here and twice by me here and here.

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

Comments:

This is an erroneous report. The first edit listed here is not a revert. (There is no 3RR violation here on my part.) Please correct/amend the report. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, please don't leave the Previous version reverted to: parameter blank, Hey man im josh. El_C 03:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@El C: To be clear, this report is focused on edit warring by re-adding their preferred version four times. I will update to a dif of the original version in a second. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It's still not clear whether it's a revert, though, without that parameter filled. El_C 03:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be related to an ongoing ANI thread, though the AN3 thread was opened one minute before the ANI thread was opened. I'm not sure if we should merge this conversation to the discussion at the more central venue (WP:ANI), but doing so would keep us from splitting the conversation across two pages. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with that to be honest, it makes more sense at this point in time. Though the user did not revert more than 3 times, I do believe they're been edit warring by re-adding the text four times. It seems as though their intention was to WP:GAME the system and hinted at that by calling out the number of reverts they were doing. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No violation: yeah, let's attend to the matter there. El_C 03:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Subsequently indefinitely blocked by Daniel. There is a discussion at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Cassyette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jonmeid555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13 Jan
2. 26 Jan
3. 28 Jan
4. 30 Jan
5. 30 Jan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 28 Jan and edit summary on 26 Jan

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a, but it had seemingly been discussed before and the subject of the report replaced other user’s comments on talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:
Editor has been slow edit-warring on this topic for a long period, before even the first date in this report, and engaging in WP:IDHT behaviour. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Beyond the long-term edit warring, there is clearly WP:COI editing going on here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of kings of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ezana of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Draft:Adal Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Endubis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
GDRT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wazeba of Axum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ousanas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Amhara people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Kingdom of Aksum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Agazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JUMPp1harm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
KallebTigray (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. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]
7. [21]
8. [22]
9. [23]
10. [24]
11. [25]
12. [26]
13. [27]
14. [28]
15. [29]

etc

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: I have no idea who's in the wrong or who started this but I've noticed these two users reverting each other's edits on Kingdom of Askum-related articles in the past few days. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Declined This is too complicated to handle here and should be filed at WP:ANI. I will note that in reviewing some of the two editors' edits, JUMPp1harm vandalized two pages created by KallebTigray by blanking them, one draft and one article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  yeah, he keeps on reverting my edits which are correct, i even sent him a source proving my point but he still does not accept the truth. KallebTigray (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  These pages are either useless or incorrect. I have removed the page for Adal kingdom, as there is already a page called Adal Sultanate. There is no need for two separate pages. This guy has no clue what he's talking about. JUMPp1harm (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  there is MULTIPLE SOURCES, stating about the Kingdom of Adal. The Adal Sultanate literally isnt the same as the Adal Kingdom? Are you ok? maybe actually look at my sources instead of just pointing out shit and not looking at the evidence in the draft. you literally plagiarized MY DRAFT. It wasn't even an article. KallebTigray (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I would add to what Bbb said that some sort of discussion and enforcement at a forum other than this one is desirable since all these pages come under a contentious topic, the Horn of Africa. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum. Kalleb has been blocked for 31 hours by EvergreenFir for harassment. I have also put CTOPS alerts on both users' talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Specifically for these two edit summaries: [30] and [31] EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd warned both users about WP:NPA ([32], [33]), but a day or so apart from each other, as I hadn't immediately noticed the edits from KallebTigray. This seems as good a place as any to note that I've also warned KallebTigray about WP:NOR (more than once; [34], [35]) which was met (I believe) with WP:IDHT ([36], [37]). Other editors have moved a few of this user's new pages into Draft space (which I'd considered doing with Agʿazi People‎), to an extent that (combined with the WP:NOR) I'm wondering about WP:CIR. I guess it's all a non-issue for the next 31 hours, but otherwise I don't know whether I am too WP:INVOLVED in the topic area to do anything about it. Feel free to disabuse me of that notion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Graham Coxon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.98.159.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 18:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 18:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 18:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
6. 18:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
7. 18:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
8. 18:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC) ""
9. 18:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC) "added a little extra praise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC) "Final Warning: Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Adding WP:PUFFERY and reverting removals Luke10.27 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours by HJ Mitchell.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Page: Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ShirtNShoesPls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Looks to be heavy edit-warring on article for Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League, demanding people go to talk page and accept their included material in contravention of WP:ONUS. From quick glance there looks to be potential WP:NPOV and WP:NOTHERE issues. Multiple existing recent warnings of editor warning on their talk page. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There was no attempt to resolve the dispute on either the article's talk page or mine. Others, including an admin, also wanted at least part of the material to remain. Therefore the WP:ONUS is on the people who want to remove multiple RS's from the article. That is why I believe the edits do not fall under WP: 3RR, as I made them to "enforce certain overriding policies". ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You linked to WP:ONUS, but it seems you didn't read it: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Your understanding of the policy is incorrect, and even if it were correct, it does not meet the steep requirements of 3RR exemption. Grandpallama (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia administrator and several other contributors sided with me. That's why I believed that the WP: ONUS was upon those attempting to remove the information. There was no attempt to resolve the matter on talk. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Again: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Grandpallama (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest this report needs to include editor Rakewater, too. There's a lot of edit warring going on, and too many reversions, by both. Grandpallama (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia administrator (who I'm not sure if I'm permitted to tag) also believed that my edits should remain. Since multiple, credible RS's and an admin wanted to material to stay: I saw the WP: ONUS as falling upon the editors attempting to remove it.

It was never my intention to edit war, this seemed to be a rare case where WP: 3RR doesn't apply (although I concede that this is somewhat subjective), and no editor either contacted me on my talk or attempted to resolve the dispute on the article's discussion page, despite my appeals for them to do so.

That's why I acted the way I did. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Read WP:3RRNO. The exemptions are clear, and they do not apply in this case, or to your edits, regardless of whom agreed with you. There's nothing subjective about it. Grandpallama (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I should've have tagged the sources needing verifications much earlier, so I'm willing to take responsibility. Rakewater (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours To be clear, "both" means the reported user, who demonstrates an IDHT problem when, in talk page discussions and discussions above, they simply restate their argument even when it's pointed out to them (repeatedly) that they're wrong both on the facts and on policy (for one thing, WP:ONUS is not reversible ... it does not mean that if a putative consensus favors inclusion, those opposing it have to prove why it shouldn't be included). And, yes, Shirt, your interpretation of 3RR is "somewhat subjective" ... in fact I would characterize that as a rather generous term, since it's obvious from the following discussion you aren't familiar with the linked 3RRNO, which is very narrowly written and very bright-line and does not in any way cover your edits. If you had made only one questionable revert, I might forgive you on ignorance-of-the-law grounds, but you didn't, and frankly your conduct has been so egregious that that really doesn't matter.

I have also blocked Rakewater, per Grandpallama's suggestion above, because it takes two to edit war (Shirt's protestations of lack of intent notwithstanding, that is never a defense outside of 3RRNO) outside of team reverts, and in this case without Rake it's entirely possible things might not have gotten so far out of hand. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Rambling Rambler doesn’t appear to be blocked. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Reread what I wrote. I blocked Rakewater, per Grandpallama's suggestion. They were warring with Shirt regularly. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Joely Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202059569 by Geraldo Perez (talk)Stop it. You’re not the boss here!"
2. 23:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202058503 by Geraldo Perez (talk)Stop acting line the owner of these articles. You are wrong. Stop your disruptive editing."
3. 23:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202057055 by Geraldo Perez (talk) STOP IT. Read your talk page. You are WRONG!!"
4. 23:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202050013 by Geraldo Perez (talk)STOP REVERTING!!! You clearly don’t understand what you’re talking talking about!"
5. 23:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1202047729 by Geraldo Perez (talk)No. Stop reverting! You clearly don’t understand this subject. Adoption does not create biological relationship. Adoption does not change who physically fathered Joely."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Joely Collins."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Geraldo Perez "/* Relationship */ Reply"

Comments:

Even after a warning and the filing of this report, the user continues to edit war and be disruptive. Amaury • 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I see the same reverts from Geraldo Perez; is there a reason why he's not reported as well Amaury?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking myself the question the same question here? Geraldo Perez is acting like the owner of these articles. They actually reverted any editor who changed that content on Joely Collins for months now. I have tried to carefully explain the situation on their talk page but they're just not listening. I'm at loss how to resolve this here.Tvx1 23:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk. If that fails, WP:3O or WP:RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

But Geraldo Perez has reverted fivefour other users besides me in months on Joely Collins alone on this subject. What would give me more chance to get through to them that they are incorrect? I mean I put a Wikipedia link that carefully explains all sorts of sibling relationships and still they refuse to even entertain a different view than theirs. I'm really at a loss here.Tvx1 23:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Both @Tvx1 and Geraldo Perez: pblocked for one week ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, it's the same story at Simon Collins and Lily Collins.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess the question is multiple pblocks or just standard blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll defer to you, but adding the additional p-blocks while allowing the editors to hash out their disagreement on the talk might be a first step, assuming civility can prevail.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try to start a discussion on the talk page of Phil Collins seeing as it concerns al his children. If someone not blocked from editing this children's articles could please at the correct templates to them advertising this discussion? Tvx1 23:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

So you blocked us from one article for a week now (meanwhile Geraldo Perez continued to revert on another). So what's your suggestion on how to best to proceed here?Tvx1 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• SFR's pretty generous here, I was about to block site-wide. I've extended both users' blocks to all three articles. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I noticed that as I was trying to add those articles to the pblock. If I had noticed it was multiple articles to begin with I likely would have settled on a full block as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Ok, to all involved, the discussions belong on the individual article talk pages, not on user talk pages. You all have enough combined edits and and years of editing to know this.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  I started a talk page discussion here. If someone could please add templates advertising this discussion on the articles I was blocked from? I hope this shows a token of my good faith here. Tvx1 00:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone willing to help here with advertising the discussion on the relevant articles here? {{Ponyo, ScottishFinnishRadish, Amaury, Ingenuity?Tvx1 01:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

  You can place a note on the talk pages. You're not blocked from those. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Capture of Gagron (1444) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rawn3012 (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. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. While not strictly a 3RR violation (the fourth diff does not appear to be a revert to any previous version and should go where the "Previous version reverted to" diff would go) it is still clearly edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1195446695

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1198232352
2. Special:Diff/1201135139
3. Special:Diff/1201151235
4. Special:Diff/1202199580
5. Special:Diff/1202331730
6. Special:Diff/1202334251

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sun#Addressing_Changes_to_the_Lede_by_XiounuX and other stuff at User_talk:XiounuX

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1202335364

Comments: There is evidence that XiounuX has a combative behavior and refused to collaborate with other editors. There are multiple warnings at User_talk:XiounuX to stop the reverts and communicate, but it seems that they would need a block to do so. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You can try entrap me into violating the 3-reversal rule all you want, but all I did was I simply added a peer reviewed scientific reference. The fact remains that you do not get to discuss established facts like peer reviewed scientific literature, and you can only counter with another such reference. This report is a joke trying to establish a dangerous precedent: defend the nonexistent right to promote one's own point of view (that even counters established facts like peer reviewed science). XiounuX (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just made an additional revert, placing them at 4 for the day. Also attempting to chill discussion on the talk page with talk about libel cases. - MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Using entrapment to justify entrapment. XiounuX (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:Don't be high maintenance might be useful here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

And now Revert #5. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely by User:ScottishFinnishRadish per this discussion at ANI. Aoidh (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [51] This is a link to my first revert (edit: first and only revert)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [55]

Comments:

I reverted his new edit that was deleting previous content. I did so once explaining my revert and thinking my explanation was solid enough. The reported user on the other hand continued to revert two more times. Once to my revert, and another to another user who edited in the same thing I was trying to maintain. On his most recent revert, he goes "if someone want's to revert, go to the talk page" instead of going to the talk page himself, clearly being aware of the talk page rule but deciding to revert two more times anyway. LeenchaOromia (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(My Personal impute) I am at reason to believe that there is a high chance (User:LeenchaOromia) account was solely created for the reason of political agenda whether it be mainstream or not, and may disrupt Wikipedia, my edits technically did not violate the 3 revert rule due to the fact exemption exist, the exemption be it is that the being (User:LeenchaOromia) edits are ambiguous, which i feel and have strong beliefs of due to the fact, i gave a backlog on the language on two separate occasions (1) of them i explained there needs to be a talk page discussion on the Infobox, [1]. My edits are not of bad faith, it is simply a reason to belief any of (User:LeenchaOromia) edits which include [2] needs to be discussed first, and my [3] was based on the fact you can get inspiration from FA status since "They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." Since FA Articles passed an extensive test. CtasACT (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The above is incoherent.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

They have gotten better .... but they've had this problem for a long time.[56] Moxy- 03:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week Also combined with not assuming good faith, not discussing on the article talk page as asked, and doing this in an article clearly within a contentious topic (WP:ARBHORN, on an issue at the heart of what makes it contentious). Since their edits over the past year showed that they had not yet been made aware of CTOPS, I took care of that as well. The block is thus a regular administrative action. (They also, as noted implicitly above, seem to have competence issues). Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: 1919 Soviet invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 45.132.93.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 19:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 11:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 20:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 18:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 1919 Soviet invasion of Ukraine."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an ongoing edit war between this IP and User:Olek Novy. Please see the edit logs for the article. IanDBeacon (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for two weeks by Euryalus. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of highest-grossing Philippine films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.91.209.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

List of highest-grossing Philippine films:

[57]

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines:

[58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

List of highest-grossing Philippine films:

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines:

[66] [67] [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines:

[69] [70]

List of highest-grossing Philippine films:

[71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [80]

Comments:

This user keeps reverting the two stated articles to include the film Maid in Malacañang. He claimed that the film grossed P700 million in the box office. However, he cannot provide reliable sources. He keeps citing IlokaKnows and Politiko, which are blog sites. The sites don't even have a working About Us page to verify that they are trusted organizations. Another "source" he provides is the tabloid named Bandera. It was discussed on Talk:List of highest-grossing Philippine films that 'Bandera is an editorial tabloid, which is clearly an unreliable source. Bandera mentioned Darryl Yap (the director) as a source, and Yap himself, mentioned Wikipedia as his own source. This is a clear example of circular reporting.' However, this user noted in his latest edits that 'we should accept the truth'. [81] He has been doing it since January 18, 2024.Kenquenito (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• I do want to point out a few things with this report: first is that the diffs shown are largely duplicates of your own edit. Secondly, per WP:3RR A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. With that in mind the edits on the List of highest-grossing Philippine films article on February 3 are a single revert, the same with February 2 and the next revert is from January 28, a week ago. Compounding this is that when filing a report it provides a line for "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" which you did not retain, as they were given no such warning. There's no bright-line 3RR violation and while they have made a few reverts over the space of a week or two, they were not warned that this was edit warring and so reasonably would not be aware of the edit warring policy, so a warning at most seems reasonable at this time. I'll warn them on their talk page now, but I'll leave it for another administrator to decide if anything additional is appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 12:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Page history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1

Comments:
Hopefully being resolved. Finally started engaging on the talk page as I was typing this. Still, let's get this on record since there were threats in the edit note of the 3rd revert discussing accusing me of a violation despite repeated attempts at engagement. Editor could definitely use a friendly admin/2nd admin (if they are one) stopping by to explain how "more cites needed" tag isn't the same thing as a notability contest. — LlywelynII 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.; any comments you wish to make you can do so on the report below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1

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

Comments:
LlywelynII repeatedly removed a tag I had added to the article as it lacked sufficient sourcing. This continued after I had noted further sourced on the talk page. LlywelynII also claimed to be an administrator; I was unable to find them on the list of administrators, active or general. Cortador (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, you and LlywelynII are edit-warring over a tag for more citations. You added it, and LlywelynII removed it (multiple times). Both of you are guilty of edit-warring, but I don't understand your position. You created the article and then added maintenance tags to it? If you didn't think it was ready for mainspace, you should have created a draft and worked on it until it was. Also, I don't see where LlywelynII claimed to be an administrator - please provide a diff.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 I did not create the article. Llywelynll did, and I added the tag.

Here they mentioned "(other) admins", which I can only interpret as they referring to themselves as an admin, as no admins were involved otherwise. In their report above, they further request a "2nd admin". Cortador (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador: You're right about who created the article. Not sure how I screwed that up, but my bad. I'm not sure what LlywelynII means by that edit summary. Perhaps they can explain.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Hiya. I can redo the entire application again but it's clear in every part of the posts submitted by Cortador above:

They initiated a contentious edit; it was reverted; they warred over it, although currently stopping short of 3rr. At every point in the process, I attempted to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page and on the other user's own page, which was ignored until this process began. That's not edit warring on my part but I'm fine with the page being locked at the moment. It should be locked without the contested change pending any consensus to the contrary or some further discussion between us, though.

We're both editors in good standing for over a decade. It's only that they're misapplying policy and refusing to stop and discuss it. They just need someone (ideally you since you're here) to remind them to take a breath and do so. — LlywelynII 20:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of wars involving Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nysreti1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */It's in everybody wiki so I'm gonna put it back"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) to 14:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
   2. 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   3. 14:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
   4. 14:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   5. 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
   6. 14:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"
3. 14:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Second World War and Cold War (1939–1991) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello. The editor has continued edit warring after warning and trying to persistently include a fake war. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No violation A lot of the reverts they've made are self-reverts, which are permitted. But I will leave a CTOPS notice on their page ... it would probably be helpful. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Bicameral mentality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind:

1. [85]
2. [86]

Bicameral mentality:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Please note that the reporter has repeatedly removed explanations of policy (OR, SYNTH) from their talk page without reply. They have also not replied to concerns on the talk pages of either article. Also, there is an ongoing discussion at NORN. Skyerise (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Page protected In full, by Doug Weller, for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Aytaç Şaşmaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ASFCEdits (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. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

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

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

Comments:The user removing licensed image and claims it "ugly photo". There are no any free quality image except this one. The user uploaded non-free image taken from Instagram page, that image has been deleted from Commons. The user does not know policies here. It looks like they are employee of casting agency.
LuCkY ^talk 15:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Jewish Currents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 109.52.60.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) to 22:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 22:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC) to 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 21:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC) "Update of the newspaper's editorial line."
   2. 21:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC) "Added links and informations."
4. 20:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC) "Update of the editorial line. Link to a newspaper article."
5. 20:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC) "Update of the newspaper's editorial line. Link to an in-depth article."
6. Consecutive edits made from 19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) to 19:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC) "Update of the newspaper's political line"
   2. 19:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jewish Currents."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple editors have asked them to discuss these changes on the talk page and referenced policy in edit summaries. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well past 3RR now. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dheerajj.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC) "/* I have sent you a note about a page you started */ Reply"
2. 12:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital."
3. 12:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC) "/* I have sent you a note about a page you started */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Dheerajj.12 blanked the article Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital and used Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital, Samastipur and created duplicate article after GB fan declined your WP:G7, and Maliner Declined CSD request as it was not valid as per CSD criteria, that seemed to act as if the user is the owner of the page!. I also warned the creator at talk page. so redirecting Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital, Samastipur to Shri Ram Janki Medical College and Hospital will solve the issue. Dcotos (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Conformal linear transformation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 100.36.106.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Here is the article before their actions took place. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&oldid=1181406476

Diffs of the user's reverts: Not really reverts but here are the diffs

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1181657859
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1181658242
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1197420203
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1204112960

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here is a link to my latest revert of their changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conformal_linear_transformation&diff=prev&oldid=1204881973

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConformal_linear_transformation&diff=1204114176&oldid=1196049973

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A100.36.106.199&diff=1204884643&oldid=1185496415

Comments:
This user (or really, IP address) is continually adding nonsensical content to this article that claims well-defined terms are undefined. From their actions alone I suspect this user is not malicious, but I also see from the history on their talk page they have had many incidents before. As far as I can tell they likely believe they are doing the right thing, but their actions do not make any sense to me. They are continually adding their nonsensical content back in over and over and I have reverted it each time. This is an edit war that needs intervention. Aaronfranke (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Oy vey. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Given this comment, and the same comment in their latest revert, I suspect they are in fact a bad faith editor. — Czello ^(music) 11:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well that’s a terrible decision-making process so it’s not surprising it leads you to a wrong conclusion. The content dispute requires input from people with a solid understanding of linear algebra at the undergraduate level. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Because apparently I am the only competent editor in this content dispute, I have requested additional input at WT:WPM. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not call other editors incompetent – WP:NPA. — Czello ^(music) 11:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes well you have just removed tags from a bunch of nonsensical content, that are justified on the talk page, about material you apparently don’t understand, and without sources. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

But as long as you are tut-tutting, maybe you should have started with my edits being called vandalism, and the fact that AF has utterly failed to respond to the substantive objections that I’ve made on the talk page. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week 331dot (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  I also gave the filer a formal warning for edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What I have seen from 100.36.106.199 are comments that are technically correct but expressed in markedly uncollegial language. Aaronfranke is also at fault for removing the tags without discussion and without providing sources. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Mutual UFO Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2003:d2:ff39:b494:f519:d6da:f330:2793 (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. [95]
2. [96]
3. [97]
4. [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [100]

Comments:

An SPA that seems to be here to right great wrongs about this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

And still at it [[101]] so this will continue until a block is imposed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Across (at least) (Don't Go Back to) Rockville and Supernatural Superserious, there has been back-and-forth about removing sourced genre categories by Seasider53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and some reverts by IMMAEDITTHISPAGE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I tried to intervene on the talk pages of both articles, but I do not believe that Seasider53 is discussing in good faith or is particularly interested in collaborating after his last post, so I am escalating here, because the back-and-forth is not productive and I would like an admin to intervene to keep this from escalating or continuing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion has been taking place, which I'm happy to continue with. And there has been no input from IMMAEDITTHISPAGE so far, likely because they haven't yet had time. I've provided valid reasons (and links to the relevant guideline) why the genre should not be included which have not been sufficiently addressed ("The inherent nature of music genres is that they are arbitrary opinions.") Seasider53 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. And really, this looks like you meant to post it at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I read the above instructions and it doesn't oblige me to use that style. Is there some obligation that I'm missing? The problem is edit-warring and I'm trying to get it to stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

From the instructions: "The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from" (emphasis mine).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That I did. Thanks/sorry. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• Warned both reported users ([102] [103]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks.

  Resolved

   – ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Ashraf Ali Thanwi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Owais Al Qarni (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 22:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC) to 22:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 22:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "Owais Al Qarni-এর করা 1205067610 নং সংস্করণ পুনরুদ্ধার করা হয়েছে (পুনরুদ্ধারকারী)"
   2. 22:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC) to 19:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Zuck28 (talk) to last version by Owais Al Qarni"
   2. 19:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 18:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Zuck28 (talk) to last version by Owais Al Qarni"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring with zero discussion. Other user is also edit warring back. GraziePrego (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

There are instances of edit-warring on Syed Mehboob Rizwi also. I believe it is worthless to change Sunni into "Deobandi"-alone, and as such there should be a wider RfC that solves this puzzle. Either only mentioning Islamic scholar, or if mentioning of the movement they have had relations with in "lede" is any necessary. I reverted one of @Zuck28's edits and they appeared constructive in that manner and didn't revert me. However, I'm uncertain why they are engaging in an edit-war over here. If someone is constantly reverting, a good signal to to right away start a talk page discussion (if they appear non-responsive on their own user talk page). I suggest changing these articles to as they were and issue hard warnings to both, and initiate an RfC right away. ─ Aafī (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@TheAafi @GraziePrego

I have made constructive edits with edit summaries, and I have also initiated a discussion on @Owais Al Qarni's talk page. However, it was they who intentionally reverted the edits without providing a summary and deleted my discussion from their talk page.

I value constructive edits and believe that individuals with insight and understanding are inclined to explain and substantiate their perspectives rather than simply reverting without explanation. I refrain from reverting significant information without providing comments, acknowledging that others may offer valuable insights. Despite my efforts to engage with them, I find them to be unapproachable and discourteous. Zuck28 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours While not a 3RR violation the constant revert across several articles with no attempt at discussion or even an edit summary is disruptive. - Aoidh (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Ashraf Ali Thanwi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Zuck28 (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 20:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC) to 20:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 20:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "wp:EDITWAR unexplained RRR"
   2. 20:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "Unexplained wp:EW"
   3. 20:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 19:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "Unexplained reversion"
3. 13:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "Do not undo any edit without any reason or reference. Undid revision 1204403225 by Owais Al Qarni (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring with zero discussion. Other user is also edit warring back. GraziePrego (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@GraziePregoKindly review my edit history, and you’ll see that every time I reverted anything, I added comments in the summary. I also made efforts to engage in discussions, but @Owais Al Qarn removed my discussion from their talk page. Additionally, they were using Bangla language, which may not be suitable on the English Wikipedia platform. Zuck28 (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours As with the above report, no attempt at discussion. Edit summaries are not discussion and their edit summaries constantly cite edit warring as reasons for their reversions, meaning they are well aware of the edit warring policy and choose to engage in edit warring across multiple articles regardless. - Aoidh (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Kemi Badenoch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 81.170.20.2 (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 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC) to 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205152103 by AntiDionysius (talk)"
   2. 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC) to 00:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 00:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205124146 by Czello (talk)"
   2. 00:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Beliefs */"
3. 22:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "Take it to the talk page"
4. 18:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC) "Summary of the views section in light of latest developments related to rhetoric, stance on culture, lgbtq and race issues. Fully cited."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours While it doesn't appear to be a WP:3RR violation as the fourth revert above doesn't appear to be a revert, they are edit warring regardless. Aoidh (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of highest-grossing Philippine films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 174.91.209.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

[104]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[105] [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115]

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

[116] [117]

Comments:
\\

On February 4, 2024, I reported User:174.91.209.79 for reverting the article List of highest-grossing Philippine films. He keeps adding the film Maid in Malacañang in the list and claims that the film grossed P700 million in the box office. However, he cannot provide reliable sources. He keeps citing IlokaKnows and Politiko, which are blog sites. The sites don't even have a working About Us page to verify that they are trusted organizations. Another "source" he provides is the tabloid named Bandera. It was discussed on Talk:List of highest-grossing Philippine films that 'Bandera is an editorial tabloid, which is clearly an unreliable source. Bandera mentioned Darryl Yap (the director) as a source, and Yap himself, mentioned Wikipedia as his own source. This is a clear example of circular reporting.' However, this user noted in his latest edits that 'we should accept the truth'. [118] He has been doing it since January 18, 2024.

Despite receiving warning from User:Aoidh, he reverted the page once again on February 7 at 00:22 [119] and on February 8 at 21:31 [120].

I'm a bit ignorant about Wikipedia's 3RR rule but I'm sure that he's committing violations by forcing Wikipedia's readers to include something on an article without citing reliable sources just to spread misinformation. Kenquenito (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No 3RR violation here but it's still edit warring, which is actionable. Even that this is a slow-paced edit war I suspect page protection might be necessary. — Czello ^(music) 11:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected Aoidh (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Ronald Colson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:80:4781:47D0:99DB:228B:8EBF:BD83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Songwriting and production credits */"
2. 16:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Songwriting and production credits */"
3. 05:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Added facts about Flip"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ronald Colson."
2. 16:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ronald Colson."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Probably same person as blocked user / sockpuppet JoelMaxey and TheRealRonald, and IP editor 2601:80:4781:47D0:99DB:228B:8EBF:BD83 - adding same text. Tacyarg (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (2601:80:4781:47D0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been declined and is now closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Requesting immediate archiving... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colombia&oldid=1204807978 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. ^[1] Reversion #1 by Dougwash
2. ^[2] Reversion #2 by Dougwash
3. ^[3] Reversion #3 by Dougwash
4. ^[4] Reversion #4 by Dougwash

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Removal of

^[5][6][7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Dougwash#About reverting an estimate of the ethnic population

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:Dougwash#About reverting an estimate of the ethnic population

Comments:

• User also engaged in personal attacks due to my name being Zaquezipe within his talk page and my talk page. Also did not show civility and was not willing to listen to my point of view of the matter, kept reverting an estimation that doesn’t try to paint itself as fact but rather a gathering of the sources already used in those pages to be used in the Colombia page. Zaquezipe (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Aston "Family Man" Barrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jabadaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [128]
2. [129]
3. [130]
4. [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [134]

Comments:
Apparent WP:SPA is repeatedly reinserting unsourced information and removing hatnote link. Note that this page is currently linked from "In the News" under "Recent deaths" on the main page of the English Wikipedia. Funcrunch (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Edward VIII"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) to 12:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 11:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "Adding alternate name"
3. 16:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Adding more details, Contributions in another tv show"
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC) to 12:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 12:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Adding more references"
   2. 12:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 09:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC) to 11:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 09:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   3. 09:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   4. 10:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   5. 10:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   6. 11:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 14:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC) to 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 14:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "Adding references"
   2. 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC) ""
7. 14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC) "Adding references"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on David Windsor."
2. 12:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Ownership of articles on Edward VIII."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Problem editor, COI edits, numerous editors have requested him to stop, yet he continues. Equine-man (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop redirecting David Windsor page(s) to Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor, or Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, Former King of the United Kingdom, it is vandalism Windawindawinda Windawindawinda (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Cornetto (pastry) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 79.54.217.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205510683 by 2800:430:1202:7B8:F813:AAFF:FE93:9EF (talk) stop the vandalism and go to the discussion page"
2. 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205484500 by 190.63.96.117 (talk) No,it says it's similar to kipfler"
3. 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205478607 by 2800:430:1384:A210:1DF:3D5E:E406:953 (talk) vandalism"
4. 19:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205473968 by 190.63.96.117 (talk) No, it's a different product"
5. 18:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205467365 by 190.63.96.117 (talk) the references don't say it's Austrian"
6. 18:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205458142 by 2800:430:1384:A210:1DF:3D5E:E406:953 (talk)"
7. 17:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205434598 by 2800:430:1384:A210:1DF:3D5E:E406:953 (talk) Respect the sources and the truth. Don't vandalize"
8. 17:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205414961 by 2800:430:1384:A210:A098:9FF:FEEC:F41E (talk) vandalisme"
9. 08:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205182756 by 2800:430:1384:A210:50F0:5FF:FE8F:CFB8 (talk) vandalism"
10. 01:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205165190 by 2800:430:1384:A210:B887:45FF:FE45:7039 (talk) restore"
11. 01:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cornetto (pastry)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Cornetto (pastry) "/* 79.54.217.132 */ new section"

Comments:

Restored the same edit to this article five times before someone opened a talk page discussion and I gave this IP a 3RR warning. They gave a cursory reply to that discussion and went on to revert the cornetto article six more times. That article is now protected, but they're still continuing the same kind of behaviour at cappuccino, which they've reverted four times in the past 36 hours. Belbury (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The user, an anonymous IP, started vandalize croissant before reaching any kind of consensus, without you doing anything.

And I tried to reason on the discussion page but he refuse to, all while you witness without doing anything.

Furthermore, this behaviour remind that of one who was permanently banned from wikipedia 79.54.217.132 (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: M. G. Ramachandran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Parthi1200 (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 10:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) to 10:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 10:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
   2. 10:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) to 09:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 09:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
   3. 09:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
   4. 09:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC) to 23:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
   2. 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
   3. 20:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
   4. 23:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC) to 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"
   2. 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Early life and background */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on M. G. Ramachandran ‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Background */ Comment"

Comments:

This user and some IPs keep changing the sourced ethnic background of the subject. We also had a discussion regarding itin the talk page. This user and the IPs were also requested to engage, but they don't seem to listen. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 67.1.135.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Restored Carter Blue Star Anchorage and Charity"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) to 00:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 00:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Restored the listing of the Carter Blue Star anchorage and charity"
   2. 00:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "/* United States */"
3. 18:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "Reinstated notation of the Carter Blue Star, a recognized Huguenot Anchorage and we have supplied documents"
4. 00:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "The Carter Blue Star of Tucson Arizona is an active Huguenot anchorage and charity established by Clary duBosc Lucas Bass Carter in 2023. This evidence is available through a registered letter to the French Huguenot Church of South Carolina. I recommend that some who says "wikipedia doesn't want me" should .... Leave. Thank you. Clary du Bosc Lucas Bass Carter"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Huguenots."
2. 00:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Huguenots."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor adding information about what looks like their own organisation to this article. Mostly unsourced, though the last but one attempt to add the information referenced a self-published document. Tacyarg (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Venkata Manoj Kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Swajyothi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1206011496

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1206015844
2. Special:Diff/1206017510
3. Special:Diff/1206018634
4. Special:Diff/1206023791
5. Special:Diff/1206025448

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1206026196

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: Special:Diff/1206018481

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1206027934

Comments:

Repeated removal of A7 and BLPPROD templates with no explanations given. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Texas Band of Yaqui Indians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Coyote society"
2. 03:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Changed false information from individual who are threatened by our existence!"
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) to 02:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 02:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Stop changing this information before the Coyotes haunt you!!"
   2. 02:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "False information corrected"
   3. 02:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Correct false information! Stop spreading false information or the coyotes will haunt you"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC) to 01:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 00:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Fixed the false information regarding this tribe based on the tribe’s own website. Please allow this change, thank you"
   2. 01:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Corrected the false information."
   3. 01:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "Corrected false information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "/* February 2024 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "/* False information */ Reply"
2. 04:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Texas Band of Yaqui Indians "/* False information */ Reply"

Comments:

Discussion took place at the article talk page. Multiple warnings on article talk and user talk about WP:3RR. Reverted after being warned. Also making legal threats. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 17:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 10:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 19:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 11:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Qajar dynasty."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I will also be leaving a CTOPS alert on their talk page since their editing was related to a contentious topic (WP:CT/KURD)) Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Christian Bale filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Halbared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [135]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [136]
2. [137]
3. [138]
4. [139]
5. [140]

Reverts at (per GMT) 15:39, 16:50, 17:07 and 17:18 and 17:36; five within a two hour span. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [143]

Comments:

Editor has a track record of trying to force English-over-British descriptors, despite the subjects all being British citizens. On this occasion edits by both an IP editor[144] and myself were reverted repeatedly without discussion, which led directly to a straighforward breach of WP:3RR. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: New South Wales Police Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 115.42.13.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Rank structure */ Restored edit distinguishing between ranks and grades within ranks which had included reference to the source (Police Act 1990, previously cited in the article with a link in the infobox) following deletion by disruptive editor who ignored cited reference."
2. 07:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Banner, flag and pennants */ Restored edit which had included quote and reference and link reverted by disruptive editor who ignored that source was cited."
3. 08:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1205578603 by Leftregister (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user has continued his disruptive editing behaviour, refusing to properly discuss and gain consensus for his unsourced edits and constantly reverting back to his own version Leftregister (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Leftregister's objection was accommodated by retainining the flag image identified in their objections but Leftregister continued to revert and make serial objections, even reverting well referenced edits without any specific reason. A date was added to better clarify a statement in my own long-ago edit but Leftregister reverted it. An edit was made quoting and referencing legislation (cited and linked in the article's infobox) but Leftregister reverted it. Leftregister removed a "citation needed" tag without good reason. It is Leftregister's reversions that have been disruptive.

User Leftregister was recently blocked for edit warring over the same article (see User talk:Leftregister#January 2024). Leftregister trolled this editor to other articles and reverted edits made by this editor across different articles. Leftregister identified only one objection to edits to the article - removal of the flag image but reverted all changes made by this editor. Even when the flag image was retained to accommodate Leftregister's objection, they still continued to revert all other edits made by this editor including quotes with reference and links to the source. Edits were broken-down into multiple smaller changes with detailed explanations in edit summaries but Leftregister still wholesale-reverted all changes without reasons for each. Leftregister even reverted changes that provided a reference to legislation (linked in the article's infobox) supporting the changes as the law. What more authoritative reference could be provided? Yet Leftregister's reversion edit summary disingenuously challenged to provide a source. Leftregister rejected modified edits that accommodated their position (see Talk page discussion - Talk:New South Wales Police Force#Flag - Is it official?). Leftregister reverted the addition of a date clarifying a statement to what Leftregister claimed was the status quo but that claimed status quo was to a version contributed by this editor that was vague without a date of the legislative change. Such reversions are just disruptive. Leftregister deleted a citation needed tag without good reason. The reasons given for deleting the citation needed tag would validate removing all citation needed tags on Wikipedia. This user has been a long-term contributor to the article, having edited its structure, organization of material and content to much of what Leftregister claims as the status quo, but, after research, this editor came to doubt one element (hence citation needed tag). Leftregister is being disruptive and continues to revert in edit warring. 115.42.13.190 (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week. They were both blocked on January 21 for this same edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Portal:Current events/2024 February 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Gianluigi02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 14:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 13:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Comments:

Violation of WP:1RR under WP:ECR. 33ABGirl (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Warned As with the above report, @Gianluigi02: With topics under a 1RR restriction you should err on the side of caution if there is any question as to whether a revert could violate that restriction. In this case your February 12 revert did technically violate the 1RR restriction as it was made after the implementation of 1RR and within 24 hours of your first reverts. Aoidh (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Portal:Current events/2024 February 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC) "Reverting edit(s) by Gianluigi02 (talk) to rev. 1206452636 by Cryptic: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
2. 19:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) "No violation of ECR present – Undid revision 1206262219 by 33ABGirl (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Comments:

Violation of WP:1RR under WP:ECR 33ABGirl (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was under the impression that ECR had to actually be established before the associated 1RR came into play. The first edit I made (on 11 February) was done before the page actually received any restrictions. Thus, per my reckoning, the rule would only apply to the second edit I made (12 Feb). If I’m wrong or just mistaken in how this works, please let me know, and I’ll abstain from this behavior moving forward. Sinclairian (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:LAWYERING. WP:ECR and WP:1RR are default guidelines that apply to the designated topics. You were warned about your actions but chose to continue reverting. 33ABGirl (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Warned @Sinclairian and 33ABGirl: You are both warned in lieu of being blocked. With topics under a 1RR restriction you should err on the side of caution if there is any question as to whether a revert could violate that restriction. In this case your second reverts technically did violate the 1RR restriction as the second reverts for both of you were made after the implementation of 1RR and within 24 hours of your first reverts. - Aoidh (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh: The first edit I made was to revert an IP in violation of WP:ECR. My understanding is this is not counted under WP:1RR, according to the edit notice: with respect to the WP:1RR restriction: reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Please inform me if I have misunderstood this. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think this edit summary is relevant. Again, if in doubt, err on the side of caution. - Aoidh (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  My understanding of the edit summary you cited is that it was meant to underline the fact that I had reverted a second extended confirmed editor. Are you interpreting that because the original content was added by an extended confirmed editor, reverting an IP's modification of that content would not qualify for the WP:1RR exception? 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think I may have looked at one of the diffs wrong. It looked like one IP reverted another, and the initial edit was from an EC editor. With that in mind I don't think there was a violation here, but please keep in mind that citing WP:ECR in this edit summary was not a proper rationale, as the editor you reverted is extended confirmed. - Aoidh (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for providing the clarification. I acknowledge my actions in the cited edit summary was improper and will be more careful in the future. 33ABGirl (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Hellstorm (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Isi96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellstorm_(film)&oldid=1206372091

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellstorm_(film)&oldid=1206562107
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellstorm_(film)&oldid=1206388117
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hellstorm_(film)&oldid=1206372091

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isi96#Hellstorm_(film)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Isi96&oldid=1206565826

Comments:

I have made several edits to the Hellstorm documentary page and they have been reverted multiple times by the same individual. Each time they have put in their comments things claiming that the original page constituted fact and that the film is not a legitimate documentary. This demonstrates the lack of the user's neutrality on the topic. I am not not here to argue about the moral high ground of the subject. I am trying to improve the article for readability and neutrality and my efforts continue to be undone. skarz (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

There is editwarring by both editors. I gave both 3RR warnings but only after this was filed. There is an argument about whether the Nazis were the real victims of WWII and one on whether or not the film is a documentary. I'm involved in the argument at User talk:Isi96#Hellstorm (film) Skarz continued to add that it is a documentary after filing this and also went to RPP. As there are only two editors involved, protection won't be neutral. We could either block both or give them both page bans. I don't see the difference between the two so far as the editwarring is concerned. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

And the other editor has now reverted Skarz. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I've self-reverted to Skarz's latest revision. Isi96 (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That summary does not accurately represent what the edit reversals were about.

My edits have been to:

• Establish that the claims in the page were the viewpoint of the SPLC as the text is a copy/paste from the linked page
• Increase neutrality but removing the term "narrative"
• Differentiate that whatever the film's moral claims are, the events discussed are indeed real factual events.

The page continues to have grammatical errors and direct word for word pasts from source articles.

Wikipedia: "claims the Nazis had made Germany a happy and hopeful country."
Article: "declares that the Nazis have turned Germany into a happy and hopeful country again." (translated from German)

Source: https://www.br.de/nachricht/verschwoerung-sekte-klagemauer-tv-100.html skarz (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Page protected Make use of the article talk page to resolve this, otherwise, WP:DRN is the next step. The protection is temporary but may be extended upon further edit warring. As for which version to be protected:

Wikipedia's protection policy does not allow the administrator who instates a page protection because of an ongoing edit dispute to pick a particular version to protect. They have to protect the most recent version; at most they may revert blatant vandalism. In a content dispute it is impossible to make everyone happy; this is not the administrator's fault, it is simply a consequence of the underlying dispute. See The Wrong Version for an essay about this exact type of situation. There is no point in lobbying administrators to edit or revert a protected page, since they are generally not allowed to do that. If you're unhappy about the protected version, the fastest and best way to do something about it is to resolve the content dispute on the talk page and ask for the page to be unprotected. – robertsky (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"They have to protect the most recent version" is a bit of an oversimplification, as

Administrators are deemed to remain uninvolved when exercising discretion on whether to apply protection to the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version.
— Wikipedia:Protection policy § Content disputes

...but this specific page lacks a stable revision because it has been created two days ago. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Thanks. I agree with both points. We can where appropriate revert to an earlier version. But not here. Doug Weller talk 21:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117PXL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [145]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [146]
2. [147]
3. [148]
4. [149]

Then 24 hour block for the above edit warring the removal of the pic followed by,

1. [150]
2. [151]
3. [152]
4. [153]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [156]

Comments:
User was given a 24 hour block for breach of 3RR here then has continued with a further breach of 3RR per the above diffs over the same issue. Also has added in WP:PA...here. The thread on the talk page linked to above seems to indicate a WP:CIR problem with regard to basic WP policies. DeCausa (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Holy Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 151.37.253.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1206745019 by Srnec (talk) Rv. No Blog; No POV; The sources can be consulted online (for example UNIO REGNI AD IMPERIUM). Restoration of previous version based on cited sources. The new changes require sources and discussions and consensus (talk page). The previous version has the cited sources available online and the original reference map"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk page conversation attempted at User talk:151.57.243.54.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC) on Talk:Holy Roman Empire "/* Sicily and the infobox map */ new section"

Comments:

Hops across multiple IPs. Remsense诉 01:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:ScottishFinnishRadish, article also protected for 3 days by ScottishFinnishRadish. Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  And they're already block ending already, 2A02:B123:F03:BFEA:BDBD:2EA4:8C44:2EC0 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: List of Super Bowl champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Derknasnort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157]; "Lede suggestion: add the total that have occurred. It may be possible to autocalc this if we assume 2nd weekend in February going forward.", "Restoring unexplained removal", "Take it to Talk instead of trying to enforce your subjective opinion"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [158]; no edit summary
2. [159]; "This is useless information. People can add 29+29 themselves, also the Super Bowl is never"
3. [160] "The Super Bowl has never been referred to as a contest. You can take your subjective opinion to the talk page."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [163]

Comments:

Editor appears to be attempting to WP:OWN this list. Of the last 100 edits, 22 are from this editor; 15 of those are reversions of other editors, and at least 11 were done with no edit summary. (And many of those that do have edit summaries, in my subjective opinion, are either insufficient or hostile.) The sentence in question here appears to me pertinent information for a list article - I could cite several WP lists that include totals in the lead, and/or Google stats on the frequency of searches for the total - which is sufficient reason to at least discuss the point. But this editor has refused to participate in any discussion on the topic, bizarrely telling me to "take your subjective opinion to the Talk Page" in the most recent revert, when I already had done so. Rather than cross the line on 3RR, I'm bringing this here so the editor learns WP:consensus building is necessary. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• You made one post to the talk page, but you didn't get a consensus for new material. He hasn't breached WP:3RR yet, although he is on the cusp. You both are equally at fault here, but in his case, he is trying to maintain the status quo in an article that gets a lot of superfluous edits. The irony is that you are saying you are bringing it here so he learns that consensus building is necessary, but you are the one that is refusing to get a consensus for your changes. It's kind of a gaslighting thing. Looking back, his version seems to be the consensus version, so I suggest you leave it be until you find a consensus for the change on the talk page, as you are edit warring at least as much as he is, and opening yourself up to be blocked as well. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The first addition of the sentence was justified via WP:BOLD. The second was justified due to no edit summary-had the editor simply stated they were restoring the status quo pending a discussion, I would have been satisfied. The third occurred when the editor made clear they had no interest participating in Talk or building a consensus. My invitation on Talk - made prior to that third one - explicitly states that I will not restore again if the editor will simply discuss it with myself and others. So at worst only one of my three edits perhaps was unjustifiable. Since I explicitly stated a desire to work with the other editor on this, and a willingness to abide by consensus regardless of what it is, "gaslighting" seems an inappropriate descriptor. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

My apologies; I realized this wasn't in the above links. It's pertinent here: [[164]]

You might want to read WP:BRD. Your first addition being BOLD is fine, but once it gets Reverted out, you then should go to the talk page and Discuss, which is how the process works. If you want to abide by consensus, then leave the consensus version IN until a new consensus forms. And gaslighting is when you blame someone of doing something that you yourself are doing, so it is a proper description. You are the one trying to edit against an established consensus, not him. Trying to force your changes against consensus is the definition of edit warring. The burden is on you to demonstrate a new consensus, which can take days or weeks to achieve. You can argue all your want, but policy is pretty clear on this. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this was in fact what I was trying to accomplish. I was not trying to war with Jtrevor99. You can see that I wasn't because he also had made a change just under the one I had undo where his description is "Personal preference; I think this looks better". I did not even undo this post as I didn't see that it was nessary, but the following post seemed a pattern of "personal preference". Derknasnort (talk) 04:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries next time. The lack of an edit summary, and ignoring my request to discuss (which may have been, admittedly, simply due to the speed of edits and not intentional on your part), made it appear you were trying to enforce YOUR personal preference unilaterally. I had no intention of trying to force the edit in or edit war, but you appeared to be refusing to discuss or provide reasonable justification for the removal. Meanwhile, this all appeared to be a misunderstanding. Thank you both for your time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• This needs to go to the talk page, and neither of you need to make any more edits for at least 24 hours, and instead discuss the possible changes. I would rather not block anyone, but this is on the cusp of an edit war; one that is totally unnecessary. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, sounds good. Derknasnort (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and agreed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Warned and now moving on. Dennis Brown 2¢ 04:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Category:Cannabis industry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.15.214.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [165]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [166]
2. [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [not done]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168] and [169] and [170]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [171]

Comments:

Difficult to deal with this, or even to notify them properly as they are editing with varying IP addresses (I assume it's the same editor).

There is a warning on the IP's talkpage from User:Liz regarding logged-out editing. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for one week. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: 2024 Pakistani general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "Saqib I agreed on removal of results with you. You objected to Pakistan Today Newspapers link. Now you re inserting the same para with Dawn News paper. I mean stay with concensus achieved on talk page"
2. 10:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "Placing provisional results in results section above rigging allegations as per Talk page discussion"
3. 10:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "Restored as per request of User Jamal Abdul USA R Bizusa of relibaly sourced Election surveys and results"
4. 10:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Results */ Provincial"
5. 10:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "Restored reliably sourced version"
6. Consecutive edits made from 09:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC) to 09:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 09:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Results */ Allegation of rigging were placed here while actual results were missing so added actual results"
   2. 09:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Results */"
   3. 09:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Results */"
   4. 09:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Results */"
   5. 09:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Allegations of rigging */"
7. 09:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research on 2024 Pakistani general election."
2. 10:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on 2024 Pakistani general election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Adding OR and citing unreliable references. Removing warnings on the talk page. And making false claims as usual on talk page discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Admin please see the 2024 Pakistani general election Talk page section Final result [172] and 2024 Pakistani general election revision history. Saqib is involved in vandalism and removing sourced content repaetedly. I warned him that I will report you on Admin notice board but He is edit warring and rushed here to report me first. If he has content dispute he may raise it on Content dispute resolution notice board. Read these two reliably sourced paras as follows;

1. Opinion polling near elections by top Pakistani election surveyors namely Gallup Pakistan, Institute of Public Opinion Research (IPOR) and IRIS showed that PMLN has regained its position against its rival PTI since June 2023, mainly due to return of Nawaz Sharif from exile and Supreme court’s decision disallowing bat symbol. As contrary to the general perception in the social and traditional media PMLN has emerged most popular party in Punjab province which have majority of seats in Pakistan National assembly comparable with 2013's elections when they received 41% of votes and now, they are standing around the same level at 45%. Whereas PTI support is steady at 35% as comparing to last July 2018 elections in Punjab. ^{[1] [2][3]}

2. Unofficial results showed PTI-backed Independents won in 92 constituencies, with PML-N leading in 79, and PPP leading in 54. Others led in 40 seats. ^[4]

You may check status and reputation of top Pakistani surveyors Gallup Pakistan, IPOR and IRIS communication, as well Pakistan today news paper one of leading english media house. Why such reliably sourced content is repeatedly being removed with false edit summeries. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

None of these references verifies your claims you trying to add to the page, repeatedly and it is you who adding OR, citing unreliable sources, not me. Pinging @Borgenland: with whom you was edit warring. --Saqib (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not my OR this is also re confirmed by this link from Pakistan leading newspaper Jang on its official website with top journalist Umer Cheema [^[5] . I can add many other source confirming the content of these two paras from diffrent reliable sources. Admin can check reputation of Jang group and umer Cheema. This article is in urdu language and can be translated in to english to verfiy the content. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User being reported reinserted 3 paragraphs and 1 sentence relating to allegations of electoral fraud and electoral results without providing a source. In a 4th paragraph, they restored two highly discouraged sources (Facebook, one of which was improperly titled Facebook) despite having already a proper reliable source. The opinion polling paragraph I removed not because of concerns of its verifiability per se but because it was written in such abominable English that raised concerns on whether this was possible WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or plain PR disguised as an encyclopedic edit. Furthermore I had understood that there had been consensus to remove this days before. Borgenland (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

My only demand for said user is that they provide adequate references that prove whatever it is they are writing and observe proper grammar to prevent anyone else from raising suspicions especially in this contentious election. Borgenland (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Borgenland for your comments. I added only 2 paras as reproduced above. I dont know about other two paras containing facebook links. If one para (survey) had poor grammer then that could have been gramatically improved rather then deleting with 3 reliable sources that amounts to vandalism. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Declined Ah, nothing like an article about a contentious election in a contentious topic area that yields a surprising result (I can only imagine that some Pakistani general went out and angrily yelled "KHAAAAAAAANNNN!" into the sky on election night, and the whole of the country heard it, and it was picked up by a satellite as well ) to end up here.

After trying to untwine the diffs above as best I can, I concur with Borgenland above that this is more a case of an editor not providing proper sourcing for their edits (indeed, there are long swaths of unsourced text in some of these diffs) than edit warring. I really think you guys should, as you have suggested, give it a go on the talk page rather than trying to work it out with edit summaries.

Full protection would, of course, force that discussion but I would only do it if it were requested by the parties as I am rather loathe to do this on my own initiative, not just generally but especially in the wake of the just-concluded election mentioned above.

This disposition should not be taken to foreclose any administrative action if this behavior on the page continues. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Bigg Boss (Telugu season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a02:6b68:10:4e00:24f7:1ed4:8a8:23d8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [173]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [174]
2. [175]
3. [176]
4. [177]
5. [178]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bigg Boss (Telugu season 6)#Bigg Boss nominations table, weekly summary and guest appearances

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

Comments:

This IP editor takes an all-or-nothing approach to the content they want to include, which was initially removed by myself more than a year ago and since then by User:Ravensfire (6 January, 23 May, 1 June) and User:Girth Summit (11 May). They alternately revert to their preferred version or WP:POINTily remove the entire section, even the helpful parts. Their posts on the talk page are vague and rambling, showing no understanding of key policies such as WP:CONSENSUS or WP:NOT, even after being warned that a report here was imminent. As they have clearly breached 3RR, and have ignored a request to self-revert, a block of some kind is probably necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

To be honest you still dont understand its not fancruft. Your just making things worst by removing content on the page for no reason and not willing to understand. It was fine before you showed up. I have made my clear points in the talk page which your ignoring time and time again with your useless comments. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Also you have breached the revert rule as well as you reverted edits on that page six times. It should stay END OF. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No move on and leave it on the page. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In this very edit you removed a different piece of content in the article, saying "according to a user who is lying this is fancruft when its not" in the edit summary. This is called disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, which is also not allowed besides the constant reversions you made on the page despite no consensus being formed in favour of them. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok I am very sorry I should of not used that type of language, but the user removed everything else in the page. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to make my point clear that it is not fancruft. I have even gave proof after researching about it of another discussion that happened years ago and still the user ignored my views. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The other "discussion" referenced (link here) is simply a 2018 monologue from one editor, which in no way represents a consensus of any sort. Their replies here are consistent with their behaviour at the talk page—insults such as "your ignoring time and time again with your useless comments", a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia process (here WP:3RR, there WP:CONSENSUS), a desire to implement their perceived ownership of the article, and an inability to reply in a single comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

If you see many users agreed to the tables being put there as its not fancruft read ahead. And I dont claim to won the page I am just putting whats right. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

So it should stay you should give up now and move on to something else. Kindly take my advice. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Own

2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Also how come no one removed the tables before you came back in 2022. The reason is because other experiences users also left it as they relised its not fancruft. You decided to come on wikipedia two years back and delete everything without even talking about in on the talk page back then. 2A02:6B68:10:4E00:DD09:4123:807B:A484 (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, disruptive editing. Dennis Brown 2¢ 10:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Kitchee SC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KamBookerHZ (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. [180]
2. [181]
3. [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [183]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [184]

Comments:
I don't think any professional football team in the world would count their U13, U14, U16 academy, and women's teams' honors and claim themselves as so-called Twelve Champions. This is Wikipedia not Kitchee fancruft. The inclusion of such "information" is unnecessary and obviously should not be written.

I tried to discuss and explain the case on the talk page. However, KamBookerHZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) refused to talk and responded with personal attacks. And he reverted every single edit I made without any explanation. He brought too much fans' emotion into this. I hope administrators can intervene and make a fair judgment.

Chelsdog (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring and personal attacks, which happens to be the only time KamBookerHZ has ever said anything on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.2.135.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert - 10:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
2. Second revert - 10:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Third revert - 11:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
4. Fourth revert - 11:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
5. Fifth revert - 16:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Disruptive editing warning, level 3 by me, message by User:Dāsānudāsa, edit warring warning by me

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of discussion started by me, diff of response by User:Dāsānudāsa

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

Comments:

Hello. I'm having a bit of trouble trying to resolve a dispute with this 103.2.135.33 IP user. They keep changing the name of the subject in the article to include honorifics and suffixes. They also keep removing some certain sourced section of the article without adequate explanation as shown in the first and fifth revert diffs. I've warned them about disruptive editing, and later on User:Dāsānudāsa and I have both written our own messages on their user talk as shown in the diffs above, informing them about how content disputes are properly resolved as well as about the Wikipedia edit warring policy.

I have started a discussion on the talk page, and the fellow user Dāsānudāsa has written their response about why the article shouldn't have the proper name / honorifics. However, despite our efforts to invite them in the talk page discussion, the IP editor just keeps repeating the name-change edits instead. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week A pretty easy call to make when the user was given a final warning for edit warring a day or two ago that they ignored. Since the IP has previously been blocked as a proxy, and since the article is within a contentious topic area, I have gone with a longer block than usual. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Warner Bros. Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.68.179.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [186]
2. [187]
3. [188]
4. [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [191]

Comments:

Repeated insertion of badly worded content and previously warned for edit warring. Barry Wom (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of one week from article. This was an issue that could have been resolved through discussion. Despite the usual entreaties to take it to talk, no thread was ever opened there. If you continue to revert an edit warrior without good reason, you are an edit warrior as well.

Since I have, as it turns out, blocked Barry for 3RR within the last year, I am going with this length for both editors, and limiting it to only this article since it's the only one where this happened. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: TSB Bank (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Angryskies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [192]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [193] 30 April 2023
2. [194] 10 August 2023
3. [195] 13 October 2023
4. [196] 15 January 2024
5. [197] 22 January 2024
6. [198] 13 February 2024

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not applicable, isn't specific to one article, applies to many articles with multiple editors having attempted communication about the issue with the editor via their talk page as explained below.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [200]

Comments:
This is long term issue with editor having an obsession about adding UK to infobox fields incorrectly. Multiple editors have pointed this out to the editor over a number of years and have tried to counsel on their talk page, e.g. in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023, but in each case editor just deleted without replying and carried on [201], [202], [203], [204].

Other examples where this has occurred are at BBC, Deloitte and NatWest Group. Editor was blocked for one month in November 2022 for some of the same reasons, but seemingly has not learnt from this. Arebeebank (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Declined This is more suitable for WP:ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: German-occupied Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. 08:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 09:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 09:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 09:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on German-occupied Europe."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC) "map of German occupied territory"

Comments:

Unexplained removal of a map, with 4 additional reverts of same edit. Similar behaviour on German colonization of Africa, Religion in Europe, and Irreligion in Germany but has not crossed 3RR yet. Meters (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

And now fifth and sixth reverts [205] [206], after this 3RR report was opened. Meters (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Editor has now broken 3RR on Religion in Europe too, with [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] in slightly over one hour. Meters (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• indef'ed by user: HJ Mitchell for vandalism. Appears to actually be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CindyRoleder Meters (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  I thought I'd seen them somewhere before. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Aegean Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 88.244.93.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) "Come on, send a letter to "Imbros" and see if it is delivered."
2. 20:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC) "Try sending a letter to "Imbros" or "Tenedos" and see if they will arrive to the destination. Their Turkish names are "Gökçeada" and "Bozcaada". The German atrocities in Rhodes are historic facts, do some research."
3. 19:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC) "Which part of it is inaccurate?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) to 18:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 17:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Modern Period */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."
2. 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
3. 20:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

unsourced content reverts Will120 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Will120, which part of WP:3RRNO and which part of WP:ROLLBACKUSE apply? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

User was inserting unsourced content, specifically regarding the image description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will120 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't find "inserting unsourced content" at WP:3RRNO nor at WP:ROLLBACKUSE; are you sure this is a justification? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

They were being also tagged as "possible vandalism" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will120 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks.
• Nominator's rollback permission removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

  88.244.93.164 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is 88.244.92.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) evading their block.

  Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Rollback permissions restored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Murder of Brianna Ghey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jaymailsays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [212]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [213]
2. [214]
3. [215]
4. [216]
5. [217]

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:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours as article is in a contentious topic and edits are directly related to it (GENSEX) Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Operation Valuable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Expocase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Azphalt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Expocase

1. 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208116935 by Azphalt (talk) RV NgfUK sock"
2. 14:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208113303 by Azphalt (talk) then stop removing sources from the body, and stop readding a bullshit infobox you were block for nearly 12 months ago"
3. 14:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208108618 by Azphalt (talk) RV NgfUK sock"
4. 10:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "RV NgfUK sockpuppets. Restore extensive sourcing. Remove speculation and non-NPOV"

Azphalt

1. 14:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "It's funny to call someone a sock when it's already been proven that I'm not"
2. 14:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "rv"
3. 14:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "Please stop with rv"
4. 14:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "RV probably sock from Orochmen cannot confirm it"

Comments:

I'm not really sure what's happening here – two new users both edit warring and accusing each other of being sockpuppets. — Czello ^(music) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems that Expocase is likely a sock of Orchomen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Olywulf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). They accuse Azphalt of being a sock of NormalguyfromUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). — Czello ^(music) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

NgfUK is NormalguyfromUK whose edits are what Azphalt has been restoring. 31.219.132.7 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I blocked Expocase. I don't know if Azphalt is a sock, so I've taken no action. Another administrator has ECB-proected the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked the 31. IP above, also Orchomen. Azphalt was found to be unrelated at the Normalguy SPI, so there's nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  I apologize if my first reading was merely cursory. It appeared to me that Expocase was making extraordinary claims and personal attacks in edit summary, but not being certain I put out the fire, knowing we could always relook at it later. Thanks for the Expocase block. I was interrupted IRL and didn't have time to be certain. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Jamarr81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208470032 by Aquillion (talk)"
2. 15:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "Restored from a malicious reversion."
3. 00:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "Vandalism. Undid revision 1208292406 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
4. 23:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "Restoring previous reorganization and disambiguation efforts between Masculism and Masculinism, due to vandalism. Please do NOT delete the section on Masculinism again and take individual changes to Talk."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "ct alert (gg); notices related to personal attacks and edit warring"
2. 17:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "/* 3RR violation on Masculism. */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Definition */ new section"

Comments:

As the edit summaries show, they've also persistently characterized any objections as vandalism and have generally refused to WP:AGF, even as multiple editors have objected to their fairly drastic rewrite of the lead and article. Their response to the most recent warning was, for some reason, to copy-paste it to my talk page. --Aquillion (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

They've also accused me of edit warring and personal attacks, and have refused to explain either accusation. The content they keep edit warring to restore includes unsourced stuff like (bold added)

The Oxford English Dictionary (2000) mistakenly conflates masculinism as synonymous with masculism.

Attempts to reason with them at talk have not gone well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Aoidh (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Jorhat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Burmese invasions of Assam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jiske890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: ComparingQuantities (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jorhat: 8 reversals per side in the last 24 hours

Burmese invasions of Assam: 22 reversals per side in the last 50 edits

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
[221]
[222]

Comments:
Not a standard edit warring report - 2 editors who are going around endlessly reverting each others edits - just 2 examples shown in the edit histories above
I haven't listed the diffs as there would be 60 of them just on these 2 articles and there are other articles as well - Arjayay (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Jiske890 as a sock. I'll let another administrator review CQ's conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 for the excessive edit warring as well as personal attacks. Aoidh (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Metal-Head (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2605:B40:13E7:F600:4853:7CAA:3670:F77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208522201 by Elvisisalive95 (talk) PLEASE DO NOT JUST REVERT See Talk:Metal-Head#Seriously though..."
2. 21:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "Seriously though, this is 100% plot"
3. 21:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208518032 by Elvisisalive95 (talk) Please see my previous summary"
4. 21:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC) "True, they are *technically* non-primary, but they might as well be primary; they are completely in-universe plot"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Metal-Head."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Seriously though... */ Reply"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 1 week /64 blocked. Their explanations for their edits on talk are spectacularly unconvincing. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I was replying to @Pppery’s attack at @Daniel Case accusing them of favoritism when they deleted their comment but i’ll still reply. As i said at Talk:Metal-Head, I was patrolling recent changes dealing with IPs engaging in identical behavior, i came across another IP blanking a page prior to a consensus. I warned them & they continue to blank the page. I was not coming from a place of bad faith. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Mushtaq Chhapra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Citation being added"
2. 05:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 17:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "Proper Citation added, crucial information for Pakistani historians."
4. 16:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC) to 05:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Stromzfiber

Comments:

User:Stromzfiber's edits so far have only been adding unsourced puffery to Mushtaq Chhapra (and List of Pakistanis by net worth [223]), reverting not only my and User:Drmies' removals of unsourced claims, but also fixes to references etc. User:Stromzfiber has also not yet replied about what looks like sockpuppetry by new SPA User:Wikibot1947: [224], [225]. Wikishovel (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Sir, edits made have been cited and are historical and widely known factual information in Pakistan. Furthermore I appreciate the help for proper guidance and understand how to adhere to community guidelines.

best regards,

Geo Stromzfiber (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Albania at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 91.148.94.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208968727 by DrowssapSMM (talk)no sense for this section, at least not on this page"
2. 18:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208968065 by DrowssapSMM (talk)"
3. 18:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208967372 by DrowssapSMM (talk)these guys won nothing for albania, many are not from albania and many never played for albania"
4. 18:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208967035 by ExclusiveEditor (talk)"
5. 18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1208947552 by ThaddeusSholto (talk)these guys won nothing for albania, many are not from albania"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Albania at the Olympics."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) on User talk:91.148.94.117 "Warning: Edit warring on Albania at the Olympics."

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Malinaccier (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Template:Campaignbox Idlib ceasefire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 웬디러비 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [238]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [239]
2. [240]
3. [241]
4. [242]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [244]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [245]

Comments:
Repeatedly reverting conflicts of Syrian civil war from the template in the span of one month. Discussion not leading anywhere despite being clearly told that the conflicts are a part of the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war and US intervention in the Syrian civil war. Ecrusized (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months from article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel CaseIf you read debate, Ecrusized also didn't give the main reason why those incidents are included in " Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war" and he even didn't mention "US intervention in the Syrian civil war" in those debate, which means he also makes false reason. i asked him why he thought he is thinking this article is included as part of Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, but the answer was "it is Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war". Dear Administrator, I think Ecrusized should be blocked well, if I am blocked because neither of us didn't give a sufficient effort to discuss article sincerely. Wendylove (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking over that discussion again it seems he was showing more good faith than you. Granted he shouldn't have been reverting so much while discussing, but then you went to the extent of resuming just because he hadn't answered you in a long time. You could have gone to his talk page, or pinged him ... but you did neither. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree and admit that I didn't ping him nor talked in his page. But what I thought at that time was that he threatened me to block my edit, because he didn't reply to my answer as well. What I just wanted to ask was "There is no evidence that 'that the conflicts are a part of the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war and US intervention in the Syrian civil war.' so give me the evidence about it". And his reply was "it is the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war."

I searched the other articles related to this article. There was no mention about it. Neither Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war nor US intervention in the Syrian civil war mentioned about it. Neither of them. He just kept saying it is the part of them, but he didn't give the resources. For my perspective, he just forced me to agree with his opinion.

Okay, I would admit this block, but I want same measure to Ecrusized as well. I didn't know how this "Edit Warring" works exactly, but what I keep saying is, he also give a point to Edit warring. Please consider that as well. Wendylove (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oz346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [246]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Oz346 [247] (cited content removed)
2. Oz346 [248] (cited content removed)
3. Oz346 [249] (cited content removed)
4. Petextrodon [250] (cited content removed)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [251]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [252], [253]

Comments:

Both Oz346 and Petextrodon, has been reverting content that I have been adding with citations. Cossde (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The above user has reverted the content 4 times [254], [255], [256] and,[257] whereas, I have asked for a Wikipedia:Third opinion, and refrained from making any further reverts. Oz346 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

After which Petextrodon has proceeded to revert. Cossde (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That was my first revert but your last one was your fourth, even after being warned about edit warring and while in middle of a discussion and a third party opinion request. --- Petextrodon (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Both Oz346 and Petextrodon has been preventing my content additions with selectively removing content that they do not agree with. Petextrodon reverted my last additions after Oz346 third party opinion request. I made a request for admin attention [258] several days ago. Cossde (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I agree that it seems the sides are at an impasse. You need to get other editors involved to reach a consensus. I see one of you requested 3O, but I would also suggest bringing it up on the relevant project talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I declined the 3O because there are three editors involved, and I suggested they use the WP:DRN. Temporary full protection of the article might be an option, but maybe there hasn't been enough article space back and forth to justify it. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Sparkle City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) to 02:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 02:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) to 02:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
   1. 02:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "Only warning: Image-related vandalism on Sparkle City."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked as a VOA.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: X-Men (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 100.17.31.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [259]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [260]
2. [261]
3. [262]
4. [263]
5. [264]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on X-Men (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP repeatedly reverting to preferred version of Cast listing despite multiple warnings (that they may not be seeing). DonIago (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Same behavior can be seen at X2 (film), where they are likewise reverting to a preferred version of a cast list that is not MOS compliant; I left an initial explanation on their talkpage explaining why their edits were being reverted. As DonIago states, they may not be aware of talkpage messages; however, they are certainly aware that they have been (almost) daily reinstating their edits. Grandpallama (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. The IP has continued to edit this article while the report was open, without making any response or using any talk pages. The majority of their last 50 edits have been reverted by others. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Barbary Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jab1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 03:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 02:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "The US permanently defeated the pirates once and for all in 1815"
5. 02:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "The us won the Barbary wars. The second and final war was an irrefutable American victory and ended the conflict period once and for all"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Barbary Wars."
2. 03:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "/* February 2024 */ Reply"
3. 03:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "/* February 2024 */ new section"
2. 03:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC) "/* February 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

They have admitted that their first edit was a revert. They know that because they have been arguing about the same on the First Barbary War for a while. Incidentally, I happened to agree with them on the result of that war (see my comment there), but since this article is more complicated and doesn't need the optional result or a useless edit war, I asked them to seek consensus for it, but they refused and kept edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• 5R (against two editors) and counting. M.Bitton (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Tristan Tate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1209656563 by VQuakr (talk) nope"
2. 23:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1209656067 by VQuakr (talk) sentence is cited"
3. 23:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1209636447 by VQuakr (talk) zero consensus to blank section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tristan Tate."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Removal of Personal Life Section */ re"

Comments:

• I'll leave this to the 3R experts, but I did just warn Desmay and their partner for the continued BLP violations. BTW I've rarely seen a user talk page with so many DS warnings--was the BLP warning in that effusive bouquet? Drmies (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry @Drmies:, I've been an editor since 2003 with a clean block log. I didn't see your warning until after this report was filed. For what it's worth, rather than being blocked, I will not revert anymore and in fact, I will just not edit this article again. desmay (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • There's User talk:Desmay#Unreferenced BLPs, but it was delivered 14 years ago. VQuakr (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
    • desmay, thank you, and I think I exaggerated the number of DS warnings on your talk page. I appreciate the note. For the record, I am not looking to block either Desmay or the other one--the article is now protected, so further disruption is unlikely. But Desmay, please be mindful that the BLP applies throughout the project, so also on AfDs, talk pages, etc. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies:, my gratitude goes to you. I won't be touching the article again. desmay (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for the rest of the day by Ponyo. The editors involved also seem to have settled this amicably. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Tristan Tate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
2. 21:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "A source about his children is not WP:EXTRAORDINARY, additionally you have also removed a number of sources throughout your editing that backed up the statement regarding his children, which I will be restoring with additional sources afterwards. If you wish to argue this, please do on the talk page"
3. 21:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Please cite reasons as why you believe tuko.co.ke is not a reliable source"
4. 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "Add hair transplant section back?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "/* February 2024 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Removal of Personal Life Section */ re"

Comments:

• Something about the Tates just brings out everyone swinging, it seems. I can take this to BLPN if the tag teaming seems better suited to more watchers instead of AN3, just LMK. VQuakr (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Honestly, I believe it is VQuakr who is edit warring here, Tate is known to have undergone a hair transplantation surgery - there are atleast 5 sources that credibly verify this - I believe Tristan Tate has also stated this himself a few times.

He has been repeatedly removing otherwise reliable sources with no justification besides citing "unreliability" with no explanation.

Sections I wrote on his children are not unreliable, OR controversial, are well sourced, and Tristan Tate himself has confirmed he has children. Mr Vili talk 00:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Mr vili, when you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I've fully-protected the article for 24 hours. WP:BLP is a complicated policy; "I have a source so my info sticks" is not the foundation on which the policy is built.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that was the right thing to do. Anyhow I'm pretty much done with this article, my original intention was merely to send it through AfD to gain community consensus. I suppose we will await consensus in the talk page. Mr Vili talk 02:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It had sufficient consensus as not ready for mainspace considering that it had been declined at AfC seven times (!) and was blatantly not ready for mainspace as a BLP, before you dragged me to dispute resolution for declining and asked a third party to break the main rule of AfC and submit it anyway so it could immediately get AfD'd. And since it was not ready for mainspace as a BLP, which has a bunch of other considerations about sourcing, it forced a bunch of people to do work for you that was not addressed in the draft. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Page protected for the rest of the day by Ponyo, per report on other editor. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 38.65.249.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1209845968 by Augmented Seventh (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was blocked earlier in the month for 72 hours for persistent addition of unsourced content to this BLP. User has added the same content twice since block expired. Has not been receptive to warning on talk page, responding "Citing common knowledge is redundant and unnecessary. Stop trolling". Tacyarg (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: Aston "Family Man" Barrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1210052749 by Bedivere (talk)Please stop erasing my edits. This is to describe his influence. You will find similar on pages such as Whitney Houston and Jimi Hendrix. And more will be added to that section."
2. 16:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Influence."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 20:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Ownership of articles."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Just back from a two week block for edit warring and ownership of the article. Seems like they haven't learned Bedivere (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not true. To describe someone's influence or legacy, most wikipedia pages I come across do add what media or people have expressed about them. That is constructive, and hence very common, editing. Bedivere should get a warning because he does nothing but deleting. Jabadaba (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Page: First Digital USD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [266]
2. [267]

Comments:

Deleted content in the page arbitrarily and tagged it for speedy deletion even if it didn't remotely meet any criteria for deletion. The user engages in edit warring and removes content on a whim on other pages as well, such as South_Park_(Not_Suitable_for_Children) and ERC-721 as most recent examples; his talk page is full of complaints in regards to his actions. The user advertises his book on cryptocurrencies on his Wikipedia user page, with direct links to a page that then leads to Amazon where his book is sold. Is this kind of direct advertising allowed? How come he has not been blocked before? He has been engaging in edit warring and removal of content whithout notice and without discussion for years, and likely brags about it. Probably suffers from some kind of "I own Wikipedia" morbidity. Is he even fit to be an admin? Itemirus (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

his talk page is full of complaints in regards to his actions … many of which are from SPAs promoting their cryptocurrency of choice or editors unfamiliar with WP:RSP so I don't think that point carries much weight. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

You (filer) created that article and wrote lots of content in it, David Gerard edited it with an edit-summary citing policies/guidelines. You undid his edit and he made no further edits to that article. So I don't see any EW. But... calling his edit vandalism and engaging in personal attacks and armchair psychoanalysis of him (some of which I had to revdel) may indeed merit more than just the level3 warning I gave you for it. DMacks (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• No violation. No edit warring by David Gerard. Itemirus has been blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks here and here (the second attack was so crude that it has been revision deleted, not by me). Bishonen | tålk 11:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC).

Page: Selma Blair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 99.245.197.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "I won't stop"
2. 00:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 00:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "I can play this game all year. I'll keep making this change."
4. 00:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "The paragraph about her anti-Muslim comments should be in a separate section called "controversy." This is the case for other actors on Wikipedia. Stop trying to protect her by tucking it away at the end of the advocacy section. I will continue to make this change if you keep undoing it."
5. 00:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Selma Blair."
2. 00:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Selma Blair."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) "/* Islamophobic Statements */ explain"

Comments:

Blatant and unrepentant edit warring for an obvious POV edit that is contrary to policy. Edit summaries include "I won't stop" which was used after a final warning had been issued and the relevant policy pointed out. DanielRigal (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Aoidh (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)