Page: List of mass shootings in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.1.152.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 19:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC) to 19:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC) to 19:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing."
2. 19:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of mass shootings in the United States."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP continues to add unnecessary info, ie "shooter is male" to entries, without consensus and isn't engaging on their talk page or elsewhere. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Great Barrington Declaration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 65.175.199.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "The use of the word fringe appears to be the result of motivated reasoning; academic citations are needed, otherwise this is blatantly political charged promotional editing. Undid revision 1090745798 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
2. 03:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Major qualifications need to be added if the word fringe is to remain. Undid revision 1090737751 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
3. 03:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Asymmetric standard of evidence was being applied. The original co-signers alone are enough to refute the undoer's opinion and every original co-signer can be looked up and verified which amounts to more than the guardian article. Plus, no academic has called "focused protection" fringe. Undid revision 1090734362 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
4. 02:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "The GDB itself has more health experts endorsing it than the Guardian article which used the word fringe. Simply because Ian Sample (an editor) used the word fringe is not a citation worthy of encyclopedic and academic classification. If you want to include the word fringe at this point it needs better citation and qualification on academics endorsing this view and who they are. Undid revision 1090732545 by Squeakachu (talk"
5. 02:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "No citation given for use of word fringe. Undid revision 1090731612 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Great Barrington Declaration."
2. 03:44, 31 May 2022‎ "warning ew" This was a direct warning from an admin.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Fringe */ starting a section for User:65.175.199.251 to build consensus. Urging a self-reversion"

Comments:

FFF beat me to it. It's a clunky awkward reporting process imho. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 04:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• The editor also claimed that there is no objection on the talk page, which is not the case. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Already blocked Partially, including this page. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Robb Elementary School shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090765182 by Jim Michael 2 (talk) full name should only be given in lead MOS:FULLNAME"
2. 07:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090753552 by Veggies (talk) DOB per WP:DOB and North Dakota per discussion on talk page"
3. 07:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Restoring a sentence from revision 1090740668 that is outside the scope of the RfC" (for context, this is a partial revert of Iamreallygoodatcheckers' edit)
4. 07:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "These sentences are outside the scope of the RfC consensus" (for context, this is a partial revert of 48Pills' edit)
5. 07:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090768750 by Endwise (talk) they're not about the same rumor, read the sources"
6. 07:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090769779 by Endwise (talk) take it to the talk page. these are quite obviously clearly separate topics"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It may be more beneficial to link talk page sections here instead: RfC on the removal of the content in question which FormalDude added back, some discussion about how to implement the RfC, some discussion about the reversions post-edit war. Endwise (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Comments:

• Reverted. ––FormalDude talk 09:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• No violation First, the reverts are mostly of different things; second, this report is stale now as FD has not edited the page in two days. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and 2022 Sri Lankan protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: FobTown (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 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC) to 17:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089947806 by UtoD (talk) reliable sources to show that view"
   2. 17:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC) "https://isdp.eu/sri-lankan-crisis-between-debt-trap-and-strategic-trap-the-chinese-stake/"
2. 12:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089885004 by UtoD (talk) there is two viewpoints on this https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/10/sri-lanka-appeals-to-china-to-ease-debt-burden-amid-economic-crisis"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC) to 21:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
   1. 21:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089710003 by UtoD (talk)"
   2. 21:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089709968 by UtoD (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2022 Sri Lankan protests."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC) on User talk:FobTown "/* May 2022 */"

Comments:

User continuously attempts to add content involving China forcefully to pages 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis and 2022 Sri Lankan protests by continuous reverting rather than address the issues in the content. While 3RR is largely avoided in a single page the user engages in more drawn out edit warring and battleground behaviour in both pages simultaneously by continuing to revert to add the same content. - UtoD. 17:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Even though there are reliable sources suggesting that it is a "China debt trap" [2][3][4][5], UtoD has labeled such content as misinformation and removed it. FobTown (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

First you have added that "Hambantota port that ending up got leased to a Chinese company for 99 years after the loan could not be repaid." to both pages which I clearly showed as misinformation in your talk page yet you continued to revert and try to forcefully keep the same content in. Also in the 2022 Protest page I made it clear you are exceeding the scope and giving undue weight for a single country. The debt is already shown, adding another entire para around the same size as the para on summary on debt issues as a whole, exclusively about China is a clear example of undue weight. That page is about protests, not an analysis of debt by specific countries and again the same issue of adding misinformation about the port lease. WP:ONUS on addressing the issues is on you. Claiming sources exist thus it must be added is not satisfactory. Your only action is to use reverts to force through rather that actually address any of the issues. -UtoD 17:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

From the Guardian: [6] “The president pointed out that it would be a great relief if debt payments could be rescheduled in view of the economic crisis following the pandemic,”. China accounted for about 10% of Sri Lanka’s $35bn foreign debt to April 2021, government data shows. Officials said China’s total lending could be much higher when taking into account loans to state-owned enterprises and the central bank. Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.

How the "China debt trap" led to the current economic crisis and protests, therefore a mention of China is warranted in the protest article (the debt owed to Japan hasn't generated as much discussion as the debt owed to China). [7]: The Hambantota project followed on from that – but it hasn’t ended well. In 2017, the port was leased to Beijing on a 99-year debt-for-equity swap, after Sri Lanka failed to pay off the loan. Critics say Mahinda caused Sri Lanka to fall into the “Chinese debt trap”.

I'm okay with keeping the existing Lowry Institute argument that it isn't a "China debt trap", but that is not the only view. Here is commentary that debunks the argument that it isn't a "China debt trap"[8]: Calculating the volume of loans provided by other foreign nations and sovereign bonds/private commercial loans vis-a-vis that from China is an oft quoted argument to dismiss the theory of debt-trap diplomacy; however, it does not dismiss China’s strategic-trap diplomacy. FobTown (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Again you are just trying justifying edit warring and forcefully pushing edits while ignoring any issues with the content. The only thing you are showing is how just because you have sources doesn't mean it should be added, for example all of your sources refer to the debt-to-equity swap which is the initial proposal which was not what was carried out. This is why I gave you the Chatham House report which clarify they CMPort thus only leased the port, not taking formal ownership, and Sri Lanka did not receive debt relief as part of the agreement. CMPort’s investment was used to stabilize foreign reserves and service non-Chinese debt. [1] So no it was not leased to because paying the Port's loan is hard but because there were other debt issues unrelated to the port. In fact they never stopped paying the loan for the port. There are many Sri Lankan sources on the issue for example according to Sunday Times Under the Concession Agreement for Hambantota port, CMPort agreed to buy 85 percent of the shares of Hambantota International Port Group Company Ltd (HIPG) for a consideration of about US$ 974 milion. HIPG then acquired 58% of the total issued share capital of a second company called Hambantota International Port Services Company Ltd (HIPS). [2] and here is the state-owned Daily News with the governor of the Sri Lankan Central Bank stating that the money from lease was used to shore up reserves as it was dealing with other debt obligations relating to sovereign bonds. Per WP:ONUS its is your burden to address these issues before adding them. While I mentioned it before you refused to and continue to avoid addressing these issues and instead continue to simply try to revert your way through. -UtoD 19:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

See the article Debt-trap diplomacy which includes arguments for and against. You are free to cite state-owned sources for your arguments, but I have reliable sources that meet the burden arguing that it is a debt trap.[9][10][11][12] FobTown (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@FobTown: Why have you not discussed these sources on the article's talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Originally the discussion was on my Talk page and Admin noticeboard, ending up I copied it to the article's talk page. FobTown (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not an "argument" page on debt-trap keep relevant page instead of messing up the Sri Lankan pages. This is beyond the WP:SCOPE of these articles. Again you continue to refuse to address the issues of the edits and even now continue reverting without taking the WP:ONUS for your content. I provided multiple sources including Sri Lankan private and state-owned media, Central Bank Governor of Sri Lanka and Chatham Institute. Even the CMPorts agreement disclosure straight up states they paid the money for the lease, no debt-to equity or any issues related to the loans of the port itself. WP:LISTEN!!! -UtoD 03:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Please note that User FobTown has not ceased edit warring and just before carried out reverts in the two pages economic crisis page and protests page. The user also continues to absolute refuse to address the issues of the content he is adding even after pointing them out here. This is disruptive. It also appears looking at the user's block log the user has a history of such behavior specially relating to China-related WP:POVPUSHING. Please address this because this is like talking to a stone wall. - UtoD 03:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – 31 hours. It is unwise to continue to revert while a report is open. Each side appears to have a sincere belief that they are correct about a complicated issue, but that does not excuse you for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: @EdJohnston: Oh well User FobTown restarted it again trying to force the content after a token attempt at talk page without seeking consensus and pretty much refusing to address the issue as well trying to create WP:STRAWMAN. -UtoD 21:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

User:UtoD, it appears that you have reverted again also. Is it time to block both of you one more time? EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: If I did anything wrong I have no issue with being blocked. I do understand I am responsible but I did my side of trying to avoid a edit war and reached out to other user,pointed out the issues I want to be addressed before the content should be added. The user just ignores it and keeps adding it again and again without putting the same level of effort when he is the one with the WP:ONUS. I cant just allow everything and anythingto be added specially if I see issues with the content. I report it here because I can't keep going at this when the otherside only wants to push through forcefully. -UtoD 04:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

User:UtoD: You may avoid a block if you will agree to make no edits on this article or any articles having to do with Sri Lanka for two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Agreed. -UtoD 04:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I was getting frustrated with User:UtoD because they considered the opposing viewpoint I was trying to add to be misinformation, even though that view is backed by ABC, Guardian, NYT, etc. Also note that Debt-trap_diplomacy#China looks at both viewpoints, but User:UtoD says that only one viewpoint is valid for the Sri Lanka articles based on the CBSL report. The Talk discussion is going nowhere as User:UtoD claimed the high ground with the WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUE tags.

Suggest that I and User:UtoD stay off Sri Lanka articles for two weeks, while we get input from a third-party editor that wasn't previously involved. FobTown (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see how being "frustrated" is an excuse to avoid seeking consensus and try to forcefully add content. You are literally refusing to seek any consensus and when you get frustrated that you can't get what you want by discussion you just revert to trying to force it through. I reiterate that I am very specific in pointing out the problems in your edits which I clarified again after you kept attributing claims to me I never made. Yet you kept on avoiding the issue and attributing WP:STRAWMAN claims to me. And yes WP:ONUS falls on the person that seeks to add the content, refusing to take it means you shouldn't add that content in the first place. And WP:UNDUE weight is a thing and must be considered before adding any content. I didn't even claim any misinformation about debt-trap you keep blabbering about and nowhere in my posts I even talked about the existence or non-existence of a debt trap. In fact I never mentioned the word "debt trap" in the economic crisis article's talk pages to even claim it is misinformation. I clearly claimed that one 1. Misinformation is about the port and undue weight is about the protest page which shouldn't have massive section on all about China. - UtoD 15:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other editors backing your viewpoint on the content? I would like to see once other uninvolved editors give their input. FobTown (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Outcome seems rather lopsided in relation to the two users' histories. At a glance, FobTown's talk page is absolutely littered with warnings and has had multiple blocks over the past two years. Not a judgement call but one user is clearly more prone to edit warring. Qiushufang (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I think that FobTown tends to edit in subject areas that are often full of editors pushing non-neutral point of view. There really needs to be more truly neutral editors involved in these controversial topics. Thriley (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I do edit in such controversial subject areas that are often full of editors pushing non-NPOV. As I and @UtoD: are supposed to stay away since a one-on-one Talk was unproductive, would you and @Qiushufang: like to be the uninvolved editors giving your third opinions? FobTown (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not confident either User:Thriley or I are uninvolved any longer. Thriley has since gone to the same page to revert in favor of Fobtown while I have reverted them pointing out their involvement via their comment here, which they seem to be willfully ignorant of in their edit summaries. To me it seems fairly obvious that Thriley is attempting to continue the edit war with disingenuous reasoning considering their comment here. Qiushufang (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate advice from editors with a history of countering POV editors seeking to remove information sourced from reliable publications. Thriley (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute section or argument. User:FobTown and User:UtoD were asked to resolve their issues in the talk page and given timed blocks. This did not happen. Their issue was not hashed out and both FobTown and UtoD went back to revert in spite of the block. Thriley has continued the same behavior with no input in the talk with apparently no input in the argument and I have reverted them with the same background. I suggest a hard ban on all users here from editing the article and content involved with a reversion to the previous stable version. Qiushufang (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley, thank you for judging the content on its merits including sourcing from reliable publications. @Qiushufang, would you mind doing the same too before taking further action? FobTown (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: I see that you again added the claim that "being leased to a Chinese company for 99 years after the loan could not be repaid". I specifically stated that this part needs to be re-edited or removed because this is misinformation as CMPort thus only leased the port, not taking formal ownership, and Sri Lanka did not receive debt relief as part of the agreement. CMPort’s investment was used to stabilize foreign reserves and service non-Chinese debt. The central bank’s deputy governor reportedly stated, ‘from 2019 onwards, several international and domestic sovereign bonds are set to mature and this is a problem’. The deputy governor noted that ‘[t]he additional Chinese money […] will help us manage our short-term liabilities [and] help the Central Bank manage its foreign reserves’ (Imtiaz, 2017). Based on interviews with Sri Lankan policymakers, including the Central Bank governor and his predecessor, Sautman and Yan (2019b) conclude that the CMPort investment was ‘not used to repay port-related debt, but to pay off more expensive loans, generally to Western entities’. Moreover, the ‘loans obtained [from China] to construct [Hambantota] port were not written off and the government is still committed to loan repayments as per the original agreements’ (Moramudali, 2019) [[[CMPort thus only leased the port, not taking formal ownership, and Sri Lanka did not receive debt relief as part of the agreement. CMPort’s investment was used to stabilize foreign reserves and service non-Chinese debt. This is a misconception that has been corrected and clarified multiple times by reliable sources. And even those sources that support the debt-trap theory have clarified that Hambantota port was NOT leased for debt concessions. The China debt-trap narrative of Hambantota Port was primarily premised upon the idea that the concessional Agreement was a debt/equity arrangement, wherein a company’s debts are exchanged for stock or equity. However, according to new official statements, the Agreement was not a debt/equity swap arrangement where Sri Lanka leased the territory for ninety-nine years to China as a way to pay off its debt. In 2019, Sri Lankan officials declared that the loan agreements for the port owed by the Sri Lankan government to China were separate from the Concessional Agreement of the port. It was declared that the debt owed to China for the construction of the port was simply transferred out of the books of the Sri Lanka Port Authority and taken over by the Sri Lankan Treasury. Thank You-UtoD 03:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I instead propose an RfC to solve this issue if you do not agree to remove the misinformation involving the Hamabntota Port. -UtoD 03:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@UtoD: it seems like you are a POV editor seeking to remove information sourced from reliable publications (ABC, NYT, Guardian), so it is convenient of you to describe the opposing viewpoint as misinformation and then run to the admin noticeboard complaining of edit warring. Your behavior should be called into question. FobTown (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Bring my behavior into question then. WP:ANI exists you know?. Go on. Also I see users @Floydian: and @CurryCity: have joined your talk page about this so I it would be best if we could get their opinion here as well if there is nothing wrong @EdJohnston:. -UtoD 16:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

At one point I had a big list of diffs of FobTown's tenacious reverting. WP:BRD is non-existent to FobTown, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is their go-to argument, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR often come to mind. Here's a good example, I'm sure I could find plenty, but I have lost any and all patience to deal with this editor and their perennial ability to slip through the cracks. I will say that they have at least shown some (loosely interpreted) ability to discuss, but only when another editor pings them. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

For that example [13] which happened over a year ago in early 2021, I didn't know that interchange types had to be sourced as I assumed that these were general knowledge terms, have since learned that most of these are roadgeek descriptions. Recently, I pinged you first [14] when we settled the Ontario Highway 5 photo dispute, an issue where neither of us had consensus, but your high-handed comments on the edit summary were unnecessary (regarding over a less-than-perfect photo, that was nonetheless sufficient to illustrate a point). FobTown (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Netflix Animation (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.89.68.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:diff/1091200761

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:diff/1091224092
2. Special:diff/1091198155
3. Special:diff/1087685185
4. Special:diff/1087066682

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:diff/1091200761 on edit summary

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Latest warning was made last month, was previously warned by other users about this addition

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:68.89.68.52#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Comments:

Persistent addition of fanfiction on the Netflix Animation talk page, ignoring WP:NOTFORUM. It has also spread to related talk pages for articles like List of Netflix original films (since 2022) and Rainbow Butterfly Unicorn Kitty -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Caryn Ann Harlos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J. J. in PA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Discussion: Being discussed at BLPN.

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

Comments:
The edits in question are BLP violations, adding POV political content about living people without any sources at all, so I was removing under WP:BLPREMOVE. Though I was not the only one to do so, so I didn't cross 3RR. Pinging other reverting editor Firefangledfeathers. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Partial blocked from the article itself. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Please note that source has been included: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OzfcEepE0o

  31:00-42:00 It is a video of the actual event. J. J. in PA (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  J. J. in PA That is immaterial to your edit warring. Please discuss this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Untitled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and Paramount Animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: ZX2006XZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BMA-Nation2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]

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

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

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

Comments:
Users has a tendency of adding false information to pages (particularly pages related to animated films and animation studios) and adding information that they feel is true without a reliable source. Even when you show them that what they are adding is false from actual reliable sources, they don't seem to listen. They also have a habit of using different ips to make themselves unrecognizable, just to make these vandalisms Averyfunkydude23 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not blocked For a whole host of reasons: there is no diff of the ANEW warning posted to the reported user's talk page because none was posted, the diff of the attempt to discuss is over a month old and it was posted to the user talk page, not the article talk page, the second user reported has not edited the article in question in a couple of days, and this all generally gives me the impression that this report was not thought through well.

  I should say there is enough edit warring on the TMNT film article to support blocking both users, but given that this report is deficient enough to begin with I think there is still room for a more serious attempt to resolve differences. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: DaDeadzombie (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 15:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "the link or article consists nothing. perhaps data is deleted , removing bogus link"
   2. 15:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "bogus addition of bogus name. Islamabad ? well that is not in India. Don't implement Mad rassa knowledge on media"
2. 14:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091151526 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
3. 14:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091114791 by Imranqazi90 (talk)"
4. 06:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Anantnag."
2. 15:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Anantnag."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User repeatedly deleting sourced content (an important alternative name of the town). Shows no intention to stop. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Not blocked It wasn't three exact reverts, and the user seems to have moved on since yesterday. Maybe they got the message. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 136.49.157.120 (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 19:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC) to 19:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   2. 19:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   3. 19:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   4. 19:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   5. 19:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   6. 19:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC) to 19:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   2. 19:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC) to 19:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   2. 19:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   3. 19:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   4. 19:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   5. 19:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* History */"
   6. 19:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Stated purpose */"
4. 18:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC) to 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 18:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   2. 18:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   3. 18:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
   4. 18:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft."
2. 19:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */ +COI notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "+COI notice"

Comments:

SPA doing zealous editing in possible violation of COI policy. Hiding critical POVs and inserting own POV. Normchou ^💬 19:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Macrophilia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crossroads (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. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

Sexist and homophobic behavior by gatekeeping a fetish description by only mentioning heterosexual males, blatantly ignoring the source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szalinskikid (talk • contribs) 04:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Szalinskikid, Crossroads is not Edit Warring, on the otherhand you have violated WP:3RR on Macrophilia and edit warring on that article No Violation period a Chip3004 (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I respected the source material, which clearly states that the fetish is unisex. Crossroads is ignoring it. Definitions should be objective, and not gatekeep certain topics because of personal reasons. Szalinskikid (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads has not Violated WP:3RR yet, there is only three edits to Macrophilia by Crossroads. i do not see an actual violation of WP:3RR by Crossroads Chip3004 (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads accused me of warring, but you are right, he's not the only one undoing my edits and just stating to read "the source". I did read it, though. I simply changed the "heterosexual male" focused definition to a more suitable "unisex/multisexual" definition that is reflected in the references. I don't understand why these changes are being undone multiple times. This particular wiki entry seems to have conflicts regarding this gender/sexuality issue in the past. The source material and references clearly give a more nuanced picture of the topic than what has been written on the actual wiki page. I only tried to correct that. Szalinskikid (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Another user has removed my changes which truthfully reflected the given sources. It's "warring" on their side, but it's multiple people doing it. There seems to be a hardcore group of editors who insist to gate keep this specific sexuality and gender related topic with the goal of keeping the female and homosexual viewpoint out. The wiki article as is does not reflect reality nor the given sources accurately. I even tried to add a gay male community website (THE biggest organized forum on the internet) to the multiple heterosexual male focused websites and artists listed in the article. It's an important fact. But it also got removed immediately.

I'm sorry but at this point it's blatant homophobia and gaslighting. "Macrophilia" is not synonymous with "giant woman fetish". It's not a heterosexual male exclusive fetish, and no source is saying that. But these editors (Crossroads is one of them) try to distort this truth for selfish reasons I have to assume.

Sexuality and gender based topics need to reflect the truth and the entire spectrum of society. It's vital for the existence of minorities; it's life-saving. It's no laughing matter that a group of hardcore gatekeepers is able to shut down any attempt for inclusivity. Szalinskikid (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I would remind you to WP:AGF. Following the sources is not "blatant homophobia and gaslighting", and accusing Crossroads of acting "for selfish reasons" is not helping your report. Maybe also read WP:BOOMERANG — Czello 09:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Szalinskikid blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Bihar930 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091311075 by Akalanka820 (talk)"
2. 12:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091278862 by Fowler&fowler (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC) to 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 02:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091152311 by Fowler&fowler (talk)"
   2. 03:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC) to 12:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 12:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091123597 by Fowler&fowler (talk)"
   2. 12:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Important information about kurmi community."
   3. 12:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 09:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC) to 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 09:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 09:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   4. 09:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   5. 09:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   6. 09:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   7. 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Not on this particular page but Lord Belbury has warned them of edit warring on another page here. Other warnings [35] [36]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Sock indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Chinese salami slicing strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 174.95.58.122 (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 18:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC) to 18:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 18:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091184877 by Amigao (talk)Your history of petty edit warring is lame. Bugger off. POV. Talk page blurb forthcoming."
   2. 18:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "See talk page."
2. 18:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1090912613 by Amigao (talk)*I dare you to do it again."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Chinese salami slicing strategy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear violations of WP:NPA and WP:UNCIVIL. Amigao (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Homeboy is trying HARD to goaltend his shitty POV China-hating article. He literally brags with his mates on talk pages about changing "theory" in the name to "strategy". No matter. I can unplug my router and have a new IP in two minutes. Your call. :-* 174.95.58.122 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Second diff that Aholegao presented above is not a revert at all. Duh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.58.122 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 설리가진리 (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. 20:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Sulli."
2. 20:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Sulli."
3. 21:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Sulli."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• User:설리가진리 blocked 48 hours for disruption, but the personal attacks pushed me over the edge. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Awan (tribe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Wildhorse3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:33, 2 June 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,584 bytes +237‎ →‎Genetic studies on Awan: added info from the same source, quoted
2. 08:37, 4 June 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,754 bytes +407‎ Undid revision 1091426512 by Abhishek0831996 (talk) rv, please refer to Talk:Awan_(tribe)#"Misrepresentation" and do not revert until a consensus is reached
3. 07:03, 5 June 2022‎ Wildhorse3 talk contribs‎ 11,754 bytes +407‎ Reverted 1 edit by Abhishek0831996 (talk): Rv, no concensus reached yet and discussion is still ongoing at Talk:Awan_(tribe)#"Misrepresentation"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [40]

Comments:

Came off a block by EdJohnston for edit warring on this page[41] and is now continuing the edit war by falsely claiming that he got consensus while admitting that he is misrepresenting sources.[42] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 1 week. The user is continuing the same war for which they were previously blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1083715884

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [43][44]

Comments:

• Comment Edits are not vandalism, and Gomaza has not been warned for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It should also be noticed that the user who made this report have starting the edit war. Gomaza (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes thats why I'm the one who performed four reverts. I'm going to wait for you to explain your removal of RS in the talkpage. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Which is why my recommendation is for both of you to discuss the situation at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I have made three reverts within 24 hours.[45][46][47] Gomaza (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I expect anything on the talkpage from you? --Semsûrî (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And you forgot this one[48]. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This was my first edit within 24 hours in this page and not a revert. Gomaza (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope its a revert.[49] Now let's focus on the talkpage.--Semsûrî (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I already explained everything in the edit summary. You should use the talk page and explain your edits like I told you before here.[50] Gomaza (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I pinged you at the talkpage and expect a adequate reply not the generic I have readded the pictures and removed the false information. I don't want to go back and fourth here. @C.Fred: If this is the only thing I can get, I need you to get involved. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Candiace Dillard Bassett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sf123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]

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

Comments:

Sf123456 has repeatedly removed a redirect category even after they received this explanation as to its function. They are also the subject of this ANI report, which also partially pertains to edit warring. KyleJoan^talk 03:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Note: You might want to add these two (diff and diff) to their list of disruptive edits. M.Bitton (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked - 48 hours for removing reports from noticeboards. One revert deletes an AN3 report about themselves, another removes 100K bytes from ANI, another revert removes a complaint from ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: List of Illumination productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 177.232.84.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:diff/1089445527

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:diff/1090735788
2. Special:diff/1090815825
3. Special:diff/1091049656
4. Special:diff/1091196058
5. Special:diff/1091206456
6. Special:diff/1091208211
7. Special:diff/1091208744
8. Special:diff/1091210886

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: warned by Maxbmogs on their user talk

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:177.232.84.121#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Comments:

Persistent addition of unsourced info in List of Illumination productions, seems the editor does not understand the scope of articles as seen in the last two edit summaries -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 15:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Plus, the IP's claim that Illumination will be producing a film called 'Cut the Rope' in 2022 seems to be unsourced. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Eleni Foureira (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.176.102.247 (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. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]
5. [60]
6. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62][63]

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

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

Comments:

Personal attacks and persistent disruption on Talk:Eleni Foureira by IP user and clear violation of WP:3RR. Iaof2017 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• /16 range blocked for one week by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Direction – Slovak Social Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Igec133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "consensual version"
2. 15:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Please do not violate the generally agreed consensus. Take a look at the article talk, Social Democracy section and present arguments. Don't do disruptive edits!"
3. 15:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "unsourced ideologies removal"
4. 15:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Direction – Slovak Social Democracy."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• It's worth noting that "Igec133" appeared just minutes after 178.143.117.83 edits (unexplained sources removal) were reverted. M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Pinging EdJohnston since they warned them about edit warring on the same article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Igec133 is indefinitely blocked for disruption, based on the long history of problems regarding Slovak politics still listed at User talk:Igec133. The issues started in October 2021, resumed this year, and apparently are still continuing, judging from the behavior described today. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Ashley Olsen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 79.116.76.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Babies aren't actors. Babies don't know how to pretend. Babies don't start careers."
2. 19:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "She was in a movie at 9 months old (allegedly) but she wasn't acting because 9 month old babies don't know what acting is."
3. 19:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "How is it possible for a 9 month old baby to act? It's not acting if you don't know what's going on..."
4. 19:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "How does a 9 month old baby know how to act? How does a 9 month old baby know what a career is?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ashley Olsen."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I can't tell if this is a child trolling or someone genuinely thinking they're right and edit warring but they don't seem willing to accept that their edits are contested (and incorrect) and have been removing information from the lead that has long been supported in the body. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

And they've now done it for a 4th or maybe 5th time [64] PRAXIDICAE💕 20:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70] (removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71][72][73][74]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [75]

Comments:
BobNesh has reverted four different editors in less than three hours, effectively breaking the three reverts rule. The user has been asked to self revert and has been warned both about WP:BRD and the edit warring, but has ignored the messages, even removing the warning placed on their talk page.

It should be remembered that the Bucha massacre article falls under the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee regarding Eastern Europe or the Balkans topics, and that BobNesh has repeatedly been warned about edit warring in unrelated topics, being blocked in 2015, 2018 and 2020. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked for two weeks. This is BobNesh's fourth block for edit warring and POV disruption.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Karine Jean-Pierre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hipal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal#Edit_summary_at_Karine_Jean-Pierre [diff] I did not try to resolve this in the talk page because they weren't edit warring with me.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipal&diff=1091938563&oldid=1091920933 [diff]

Comments:
Karine Jean-Pierre, an American political advisor, made some comments and was criticised for them. Hipal changed the wording to state that she was attacked. Multiple users have raised issues with her comments being downplayed in the article, and the response to her comments being misrepresented, such as implying a physical attack. (See [81], [82], [83], [84].) The question about bias was not helped by Hipal's inflammatory responses contrary to WP:THREATEN and WP:ESDONTS: Toa Nidhiki05 said in the edit summary "Attacked is not a proper wording here, that implies some sort of physical confrontation", to which Hipal responded in the reversion edit summary "another block needed?", (See: [85]), despite not even being an Administrator to issue such a block. I understand Hipal used to be an Administrator, however, so they should know better than to engage in this conduct. An IP said in the edit summary "NPOV. There is no source provided for physical attack. The source provides "President Biden’s incoming White House press secretary has come under attack". Coming under attack isn't being attacked, it's being criticized." (See: [86]), to which Hipal responded "let's get the NOTHERE ip's blocked" (See: [87]), contrary to WP:ACCUSE, WP:AGF and WP:HUMAN. Hipal was informed that they have breached WP:3RR (See: [88]), although their user page claims they hold themselves to 1RR usually (See:User_talk:Hipal). The user has a lot of edits deleting other people's work and reverting their edits, for example, 4 reverts in a row beginning "Undid revision..." for the PragerU article ([89], [90], [91], [92]), although in those cases the reversions were for different pieces of text.

This appears to be a long pattern of behaviour, and struggling with WP:CIVIL: their userpage is all about "drama of all these editors trying to work together with some harmony", "One thing I've tried with a great deal of success is to stop assuming that editors will be civil", etc. Their talk page is about breaches of an ANI moratorium (18), accusing other contributors (19), threatening other contributors (20), edit warring and not coollaborating (21 22, 23, 24, 25), requiring dispute resolution (26, 27), and reverting edits and deleting content without justification 28 29 30, 31 32 33 34 35, 36 37, 38 39). From what it appears, Hipal has a high edit count by deleting the content written by others in good faith, and skipping the use of templates such as {{rs}}, and that has given a sense of hubris to threaten blocks, assume bad faith and make accusations of WP:NOTHERE. This behaviour is entirely unacceptable, but it appears they think that they can get away with it, stating on their userpage "Wikipedia does very little to enforce civility, so we should all expect that some editors here will be incivil".

Hipal should not have breached 3RR, let alone a host of other rules. Please act on this. 86.171.219.109 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I am the London IP. I've edited Wikipedia for the lat 15+ years and I learned long ago to typically edit obscure and non-controversial articles because I hate the aggression and incivility of some editors here, so I was a little bit shocked when Hipal started deleting large swathes of an article I was working on and trying to order me about. It was disruptive to WP to prove a point -- WP:POINT. No message on the talk page of the article, just being overly WP:BOLD, ignoring point 7 of WP:COOL, so I messaged him/her in accordance with WP:BRD in good spirit. If you question a citation source that is used on over 600 other English Wikipedia articles, you don't need to delete large parts of the article when a reliable sources template would do just fine or, better yet, to actually spend time like other contributors have and do some research themselves to replace sources with better ones. Despite my rather nice message on his/her talk page, I've come to see that I've been accused of WP:NOTHERE and WP:HOUNDING -- that's WP:BULLYing. They are big accusations to throw around without justification, and are totally against WP:GF. As discussed in the above, this person sees interacting on WP as a WP:BATTLE rather than a collaboration and it's inappropriate. An admin, Bishonen, left a message on his/her talk page [93] stating that Hipal was misusing edit summaries, yet Hipal simply continued this conduct, as shown above. Toa Nidhiki05 was similarly confused by the aggression (s)he faced from Hipal. [94] After Hipal stated The revert was a continuation of the edit-warring,[95] rather than stopping the edit warring, (s)he continued with it, making 4 reverts after that, as shown above. My only involvement in that edit war was to come in as an independent third party, review the source material, and reflect in the article what the source stated, and stating that in the edit summary. When my single edit was reverted by Hipal, I did not engage further because I edit WP because I enjoy building something great, not because I want childish squabbles. The page in question has now been protected by an admin, using the wording that I and the many others excluding Hipal determined was consistent with WP:NPOV: criticised, not attacked. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:D80D:BD89:4048:812 (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hipal Did not Violate 3RR, he was removing Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy as it is an exception to 3rr Rule. Chip3004 (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The fourth diff is a self-revert. No 3RR violation. NOTHERE made sense in context, as the IP had just made an obviously POINTy edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That last diff is a self-revert, so there's no case based upon those diffs. This is not a venue for addressing other complaints, and editors are expected to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes.

I'm always happy to follow my standard response to such situations, as I've written a the top of my talk page: I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know. The article is protected, and we've been making good progress on the article talk page after the disputes were brought up at BLPN, where it first got my attention.

I hope we can get the three ip's blocked, or get them to radically change their behavior. Given the political battleground around the article content, I find that unlikely. ArbEnf doubly applies to the article. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Chip3004, but Hipal did violate 3RR. The above links show that (s)he replaced the word criticised with attacked, and when it was corrected, (s)he reverted it 4 times. Hipal has been around long enough to know that that's simply not acceptable. It had nothing to do with libel, bias, unsourced, or poorly sourced material -- the source has remained the same throughout. Your defence of this action using generic justifications simply does not hold water. It has been shown that Hipal continued this conduct after admitting it was edit warring, and the only libel is that against all other editors who have been faced with a raft of unseemly allegations against us. An apology would go along way. I don't know Hipal's history with the other users, except to see (s)he is regularly in edit wars, but certainly the allegations against me are baseless and offensive and I did not deserve that. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:20BF:1264:A707:C04C (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That last diff is a self-revert, so there's no case based upon those diffs. This is not a venue for addressing other complaints, and editors are expected to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes.

I'm always happy to follow my standard response to such situations, as I've written a the top of my talk page: I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know. The article is protected, and we've been making good progress on the article talk page after the disputes were brought up at BLPN, where it first got my attention.

I hope we can get the three ip's blocked, or get them to radically change their behavior. Given the political battleground around the article content, I find that unlikely. ArbEnf doubly applies to the article. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Chip3004, but Hipal did violate 3RR. The above links show that (s)he replaced the word criticised with attacked, and when it was corrected, (s)he reverted it 4 times. Hipal has been around long enough to know that that's simply not acceptable. It had nothing to do with libel, bias, unsourced, or poorly sourced material -- the source has remained the same throughout. Your defence of this action using generic justifications simply does not hold water. It has been shown that Hipal continued this conduct after admitting it was edit warring, and the only libel is that against all other editors who have been faced with a raft of unseemly allegations against us. An apology would go along way. I don't know Hipal's history with the other users, except to see (s)he is regularly in edit wars, but certainly the allegations against me are baseless and offensive and I did not deserve that. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:20BF:1264:A707:C04C (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hipal, your response to all IPs is to suggest that we're blocked. You would do well to read WP:HUMAN. I certainly have done nothing do deserve a block, and have faced continued accusations from you when you tried to start an edit war on another page. Common courtesy goes a long way. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:20BF:1264:A707:C04C (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:Johnuniq. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Page:Crnojević noble family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sideshow Bob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]- unsourced support of newly created ip
2. [97] - continues edit warring with nationalistic POV comment, again without source
3. [98]
4. [99]- after being reverted by another editor, Sideshow Bob continues to edit warring,again with the same unconstructive comment, breaking the rule of 4 reverts

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

Comments:

The editor has a long term history of edit warring, without any constructive contribution to the articles on Wikipedia, usually their comments are based on insults, political comments and swear words like this examples [[101]],[[102]], in this instance they also broke 4 RR revert rule even though they got warned on their talk page and reverted by another editor, obviously WP:NOTHERE. Theonewithreason (talk) 08:49 07.June 2022 (UTC)

I have been an editor on English Wikipedia for 15+ years now, making significant contributions primarily to Montenegro-related articles, and have been editing only sporadically lately due to real world obligations and lack of time. However, one thing has been constant throughout my time here - I have been harassed constantly by the clique of Serbian nationalists posing as constructive editors while pushing fringe theories which amount to erasing everything Montenegrin and "serbifying" entire Montenegrin history which they have dangerously limited knowledge on. This particular user is the n-th incarnation of the same pattern, which leads me to suspect that he/she is possibly a sock or reincarnation of one of a number of previously permanently banned like-minded users which tried to present me as unconstructive in the same manner (the latest being Ktrimi991, Sadko, etc. etc). I don't particularly care about this non-issue, and shall not comment further. All you need to know is there is an organised attempt at skewing the Montenegrin history due to sheer number of Serbian nationalist editors active on English wiki, and I have unsuccessfully made an attempt of introducing some NPOV, but seem to be fighting against the windmills here. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 11:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

No violation It seems someone has actually responded to the call to open discussion on the talk page, although this is hardly a constructive way to start it. As Sideshow Bob has noted, removing a {{pov}} tag repeatedly is not the way to address the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Sudhir Chaudhary (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Shivaxx8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092012700 by Bonadea (talk) removed disorted facts"
2. 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091994624 by Bbb23 (talk) Removal of unauthentic legal cases that have been closed years ago. Addition of new elements."
3. 15:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091992703 by Bbb23 (talk) BBB23 STOP your derstruptive editing. You are adding legal cases that have been discontinued long ago."
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091981459 by Bonadea (talk) I am editing the info on behalf of personality. Don't revert without permission."
   2. 15:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "edited reference"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

see here for warning PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Blablubbs. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Sudhir Chaudhary (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Shivaxx8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091994624 by Bbb23 (talk) Removal of unauthentic legal cases that have been closed years ago. Addition of new elements."
2. 15:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091992703 by Bbb23 (talk) BBB23 STOP your derstruptive editing. You are adding legal cases that have been discontinued long ago."
3. 15:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091981459 by Bonadea (talk) I am editing the info on behalf of personality. Don't revert without permission."
4. 12:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Sudhir Chaudhary (journalist)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note the ES "am editing the info on behalf of personality. Don't revert without permission." at 17:33. bonadea contributions talk 18:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

These ES [103][104] were also interesting. Is it true? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hm, based on the refs, probably not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —C.Fred (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [109]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• none at the time, now Talk:Same-sex_marriage#"metropolitan"ism

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [111]

Comments:

I'm reporting this as an uninvolved editor. In the last 24 hours, Kwamikagami has made four reverts, which is in violation of WP:3RR which states An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Discussion between Kwamikagami and @Newimpartial: has been ongoing on Talk:Same-sex marriage for a couple of weeks now with no resolution. I issued Kwamikagami with a 3RR warning, diff above, which they then removed from their talk page [112]. As another editor reverted their fourth revert [113] so I do not know if Kwamikagami intended to self-revert or was ignoring the report. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If I'm reading the timestamps correctly, you warned Kwamigami 10 minutes after edit #4 above, then raised this report without identifying any of K's following edits as edit-warring. Is that right? NebY (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I was filing a bug report with the new section tool, and replying to a comment on another talk page in the time since filing the report. I've not yet caught up on all of the actions in the last ten minutes. However in doing so now, I do agree that there was a fifth revert as identified by Newimpartial and Bbb23 below, that does not appear to have been self-reverted as of yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, so you went straight from warning to reporting without K making any intervening edits, is that right? It makes the warning seem rather irrelevant if you were going to report anyway, except perhaps that the report asks for a diff of a warning. NebY (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is an experienced editor who knows better (and a former admin, at that) and even after the warnings has continued edit warring on sanctioned articles. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how my last edits were "edit-warring". Two were links that AFAICT are not opposed by other editors, and one was a tag marking the dispute. But I've self-reverted regardless. — kwami (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see my comment below about the part of your edit that constituted an additional (technical) revert. Also, your other edits were clearly intended to continue the dispute by other means, in article space, after I had started the discussion on Talk. So you were wise to self-revert under the circumstances, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't even seen your discussion yet, and anyway tagging a disputed point is an appropriate way to handle a dispute that is under discussion. Linking WP articles for unclear referents is hardly "continuing the dispute by other means" when you don't dispute the referents! At least, I assume that when you wrote "France proper", what you intended was the topic of our article "Metropolitan France". — kwami (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe this is off-topic for the noticeboard, but I have responded to your claim at the article Talk page. In any event, you seem to be missing the point that "being right" isn't a valid pretext for edit war behaviour (except in WP:3RRNO situations, which this manifestly isn't). Newimpartial (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "being right". I tagged the point you challenged and moved on to cleaning stuff up. If you want to count that as "a pretext for edit war", fine, I've already reverted myself. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

An editor who resorts to templating an issue in dispute when they "run out of reverts" is a pretty good indicator of WP:EW ideation, or at least WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. You have done this now, repeatedly. Newimpartial (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that the subject for today's activation of Kwamigami is different from the previous occurrence; I have started a Talk page discussion of the new topic here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Note also that I believe this subsequent edit by Kwamikigami was also technically a revert, though it may not have been intended as one. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how that counts as a rv, but I've self-reverted anyway.

Do you actually dispute the links? And does tagging a disputing point count as a "revert" for purposes of 3RR? — kwami (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Our edits sailed past each other; please see my reply to your comment below. Newimpartial (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd actually forgotten yesterday's edits per BOLD until I checked the 3RR warning. No discussion by BOLD editor at the time. I'm sure there are other ways around this dispute than the existing wording, if the consensus of the past year no longer applies. — kwami (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Undoing your most recent revert might be taken as an indication of good faith... Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Can't, you already reverted it. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That's simply not true; your last 3 consecutive edits constituted the last revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that. My last rv was rv'd. My last edits did not touch Newimpartial's wording. AFAICT the links are not part of the dispute, and AFAIK tagging a contested point pending discussion doesn't count as a 'revert'. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that re-inserting the word "metropolitan" at the same point in the article - whether or not capitalized and whether or not hidden by a pipe link - technically constitutes a revert. Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps so. I've already reverted that. But note that I used that wording in the link because Metropolitan France is the wording of our article. I suppose I could've linked to a rd in order to avoid that word, but someone would eventually 'fix' it to what I had, so that seems rather pointless. — kwami (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

For a former admin, your grasp of the whole "don't edit war" principle seems pretty thin, tbh. And citing BRD as though it were policy in an apparent attempt to excuse your WP:EW and OWN behaviour - as you did here - does not improve the impression you give. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Your claim was that you could revert consensus, and that it was up to the supporter of the status quo to get a new consensus on Talk before reverting you. That's contrary to BOLD, so I thought BOLD was appropriate to cite. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You cited BRD, and when I call you on that you now claim consensus for your version. This is precisely what I have asked you for on Talk - evidence of prior consensus - but to no avail. I have not seen any other editors supporting your preferred language for the article, whether in the edit history for the article or in the Talk archive. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "call me out"? You made the change, so per BOLD it's up to you to defend it. This isn't you reverting a recent change, this is you making the change. The wording has been stable for a year. That in itself demonstrates consensus. You've also noted old talk page discussions that use the term you dispute, with no-one objecting to it. That also shows consensus. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No. No it doesn't and you know better. If an error remains in an article for 10 years, it doesn't mean it should stay, it means it gets fixed. The same thing applies. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That would be true if we were talking about an error, but we're not. We're talking about the best wording. AFAICT there's no dispute about the facts. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In the last nine-ten months, several editors have removed the terms in question and you (and only you) have added them back in. That isn't what anyone would regard as "implicit consensus" - more like WP:OWN on your part. But even if you were "right" on the merits, that wouldn't justify your four/five reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That may be true over the past 9-10 months, but others had done the same before that.

You're correct, that doesn't justify my 4 reverts. My only excuse here is that I honestly forgot that I'd made the same reverts yesterday.

But also on your part, saying that the status quo ante is "ridiculous" doesn't justify your edit-warring. If you want to make a change and it's contested, you should take it to talk, not demand that it remain in the article and that the status quo ante be defended on talk. The fact that someone else had previously made a similar change without discussion doesn't justify you doing the same. You didn't start a discussion until after this 3RR was filed. I'm happy to discuss other wording, my only concern that it be accurate and not misleading. For example, your implication that integral parts of France are not "properly" part of France is problematic, IMO. It would be like saying that Hawaii isn't part of the USA "proper". — kwami (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Whether due to a self-revert by Kwami or some other means, the 'metropolitan' language originally added by Kwami is no longer in the article. That suggests that the edit war may be over. Other editors don't seem to support Kwami's position on these distinctions so it's a good thing he stopped reverting. Anyone who disagrees with this result should consider WP:DR. In any case, our article on Same-sex marriage in France points out that the law applies to all parts of France including outre-mer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Greensboro massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
Kire1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
North Carolina Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [118]
5. [119]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120] [121] [122]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [123] [124]

Comments:
I initiated an edit to correct an error in the article. Subsequently, one, then two editors working in concert attempted to restore the erroneous information. A discussion was initiated at Talk, where I presented the reasons why the information was erroneous. The two editors refused to work collaboratively with me or heed the information given to them, but simply acted to restore the error without a rationale. This is a "slow motion" edit war that does not meet the definition of 3RR, but needs to be resolved nonetheless.Gulbenk (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• I fully protected the article for one week. The three editors are urged to go back to the article Talk page to continue their discussion, and if an agreement is not reached as to the content dispute, other forms of dispute resolution must be tried. All three editors are warned that if after the protection expires, they edit the article without a clear consensus, they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  I am fine with the page being temporarily protected, but I agree with Kire1975's comments below. The reason I haven't been more involved in improving this page is Gulbenk's hostile behavior, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Gulbenk has been squatting on this page for several years, and has a habit of wholesale reverting good-faith edits (from many different editors) in favor of preserving his particular POV. He has refused to provide reasonable explanations for his reverts when asked about them. He is creating a huge hurdle for any article contributors since he has shown he will revert any contributions going against his POV within minutes or hours, post hostile wall-of-text responses demeaning other users' edits on the talk page, accuse editors of pushing a POV or "working in concert" against him like he commented above, and report editors to administration. Both Kire1975 and I got buy in from each other on undoing a couple of his reverts and I welcome feedback from any editors, but Gulbenk refuses to discuss in good faith.

  A recent example is the talk page discussion about his reverting references to mainstream sources discussing possible racial prejudice in multiple jury trials. We have given contemporary and current reliable sources for this including the New York Times, Emory Journal, the Washington Post, the News & Record, and the News & Observer, but Gulbenk is claiming final say over any page edits and refuses to allow any sources that contradict the opinions of these 1980's North Carolina jury trials, saying over and over that the only valid edits are ones that validate the opinion of one of these 1980's juries and that anything that goes against or colors opinions of those juries is illegitimate. North Carolina Man (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Reply: Gulbenk has a long history of WP:DISRUPTIVE edits on this article, going back well over two years before I started paying attention to it this week. For two days, Gulbenk has lobbied personal attacks against North Carolina Man and myself on the talk page when he does not get his way. This is far from a slow motion edit war. This report is an escalation of his attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the process and make his attacks seem official before someone eventually proposes a WP:TBAN on the topic for him as becomes more and more likely to happen. "The consensus is simply not on his side. Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with him." The article's lead alone has seven paragraphs in it, but editors are afraid to change anything in it because Gulbenk is a WP:BRR edit warrior. He's not interested in discussions on the talk page. He is the captain of this page and it's his way or the highway. I have been trying to assume good faith but as anyone who reads the talk page can see, one can only pretend so long. Kire1975 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• FYI, the second edit [125] that Gulbenk claims above to be an "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is actually an attempt by him to use the talk page as a forum for his own WP:CPP political views. He actually claims in this edit that he would assign the term "domestic terrorism" to at least one of the parties in this dispute. I asked him to read WP:NOTFORUM and stop pinging me, he persists aggressively enough to threaten blocks and sanctions against me and anyone else who disagrees with him, even if we have RSS sources to back up our edits. Kire1975 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Please also note that Gulbenk's reasoning here does not mention what the "error" he decided to declare this war about was, what was "erroneous" about the "information" that he handed down gave out, nor what the "reasons why the information was erroneous" means. He fails to state how he attempted to work "collaboratively" with us. He describes himself only as "giving information." Our rationale for the edit reversion was very clear from the beginning, supported by evidence and stated multiple times. His claims that we don't have one here are malicious and false. It is Gulbenk who is unwilling to collaborate. Kire1975 (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you Bbb23 for the intervention. I wish I could say that a one week cooling off period holds some hope for mutual agreement. But the three posts (above) by Kire1975 are indicative of the problem. Personal attacks, links to off-topic subjects (not "domestic violence), no discussion on the merits. Gulbenk (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• • • Reply: Gulbenk , you may have submitted a typo. Nothing here has been said or linked to about "domestic violence". I think you must have meant "domestic terrorism" which is very much on-topic. No personal attacks against you have been made. My next edit will be to ask a question about the merits of the case on the talk page. Kire1975 (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

      • 72+ hours and no reply to the question about the merits of the case from Gulbenk .

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092040163 by MrOllie (talk)"
2. 20:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091898981 by MrOllie (talk)"
3. 01:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091895850 by MrOllie (talk)"
4. 00:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1091460400 by MrOllie (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Algeria "/* Evidence from the Ain Boucherit archeological site, in Algeria, demonstrated that the country has been inhabited since 2.4 million years ago, before any other country in the Mediterranean */ Reply"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Cyber Anakin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2800:A8:A01:A1:35C0:A77E:D72E:23E3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [126], however I also did a general citation clean-up as in these three edits.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [127] - Initial change of two citations to nested archive links (not revert)
2. [128] - First Restoration of nested archive links
3. [129] - Second restoration of nested archive links
4. [130] - Third restoration of nested archive links
5. [131] - Change of nested archive link to another via urlscan.io (not technically a revert)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [133]
• [134]

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

Comments:

This is for an edit war report, and not 3RR. The IP editor has been reverting against myself and @Izno: to insert an archive URL as a citations primary URL, and then to use a nested archive URL. I've tried asking the editor about this, however the response I've received has been odd. The editor is convinced that Wayback Machine archive links may result in a BLP violation, and so has been insisting on using a nested archive (that is an archive of an archive) to prevent a reader from viewing older or newer revisions of the archived page. I tried to clarify what PAG supported this, however received no response.

After issuing the editor with the edit war warning, I was told to Stay out of the way; you seems haven't grasp the seriousness in terms of handling BLP articles, which sometimes would turn really sensitive. I've attempted to clarify again while writing this report which policy or guideline supports this, only to be told that the editor is invoking WP:IAR and has now changed the link again to use a nested archive of the website urlscan.io. The editor then shortly after removed that comment from their talk page. I'm not sure how else to resolve this as the IP editor seems unwilling to engage further on this issue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked While he is definitely taking the rope offered him, he hasn't reached the end yet. Since your attempt to discuss he has not edited the article. Let's see where we are at with this in 24. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Please read WP:BLPCOI and also Wikimedia resolution on BLP. The gist is competence is required when handling sensitive articles like BLP. You are literally whacking a mountain out of a molehill while admitting that you don't know how to handle those. Furthermore as a fair warning those articles are nominally under discretionary sanctions.2800:A8:A01:A1:35C0:A77E:D72E:23E3 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Leave it to the experienced. Furthermore and bluntly, I think that's logically fallacious to insist that nested archives are not allowed simply because they are not in WP:PAG. I don't know the specific name of the fallacy because it's at the tip of the tongue in this time. 2800:A8:A01:A1:35C0:A77E:D72E:23E3 (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
2. 01:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
3. 01:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
4. 23:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[136]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Discussion at Talk:Balhae#Sources.

Comments:

This is a spill over from the dispute at Balhae. Many if not most of Zessede's edits are pushing for an ultranationalist agenda on controversial topics with false citations that do not verify the source. When pointed out the editor first calls Korean and western sources cited by others "Chinese", and then makes personal attacks on other editors, using slurs such as "wumao". Esiymbro (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Zessede had also been warned recently at 00:35 for almost breaking WP:3RR at Balhae (RV: [137], [138], [139]) and told to go to dispute resolution at 01:27. Zessede did not engage in dispute resolution before going back to edit war at Goryeo at 01:55: [140]. Constant name calling both in edit summaries and in the talk page at Talk:Balhae#Sources and Talk:Goryeo#Chinese_editors_sabotaging_page. Qiushufang (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Also at ANI ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 15:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Absolutely Certainly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [142]
2. [143]
3. [144]
4. [145]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147], [148], [149], and the edit summary at [150]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [151]

Comments: Basically, this user believes that MOS:CANLAW is either wrong or doesn't want to listen, and has taken it upon themselves to remove italics from the phrase "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite repeated requests to stop and an edit warring notice. Multiple editors have tried to explain this. They also tend to cause other damage to the article with these reverts, such as removing the bold of the article's title from the lede. Singularity42 (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for generally disruptive editing, including edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jessica Taylor (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Freethinker6799 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153] 05:00, 6 June 2022: Restored disputed content.
2. [154] 06:51, 6 June 2022: Restored the same disputed content again.
3. [155] 18:09, 6 June 2022: Very likely restored the same disputed content again while logged out.
4. [156] 02:23, 7 June 2022: Restored the same disputed content again (with very minor changes).
5. [157] 07:42, 7 June 2022: New edit: after finally coming to understand that the previous content was based on something we call "unreliable sources", claims that a bunch of existing content sourced to RS should in fact be cut for being "unreliable"
6. [158] 09:40, 7 June 2022: Reinstated the new edit after it was reverted.
7. [159] 19:04, 7 June 2022: Reinstated the new edit after it was reverted once again.
8. [160] 19:24, 7 June 2022: Reinstated the new edit after it was reverted once again.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162] [163]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [164]

Comments:

This brand new SPA has made lots of colorful angry remarks about me over the past couple days, if that's considered relevant (e.g. [165][166][167]). Language skills are certainly an issue but the conduct problem appears to go far deeper. Note that they claim here [168] not to actually be a new user. If so, they should certainly know better. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a shame you are trying to get me blocked instead of discussion & resolution. I believe as there's not justice you would be successful in this while since you're not into truth and you not well mannered you will lose finally. That wouldn't be end if it. It's not just me, there are many people out there who believe in justice and truth and discussion. They will teach you, maybe someone like you with no manner.

Plus, FYI yes maybe my English wouldn't be so good, it's not my mother tongue, but making it as a reason for block?! I know 4 languages, and the life is too short for speaking as you would like or didn't see it as a reason for block. Be committed to truth and justice Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My official Response Greetings to all. I've lost my account I'm not new. Also supposed I'm new, would it means that I would be the wrong one? Here is the thing. The page under dispute basically is promoting. I've add some criticizing citing daily & others. This user generalrelative removed all due to unreliable sources, as well as tracked down all my activities in two other articles and get them all deleted! I add another source and the original tweet link, again removed on the ground of unreliable sources. Ive tried a couple of times to resolve this dispute no gain, user deleted all messages on thier talk page, when you go there is nothing, for they are in edit history. I brought the problem to dispute resolution, third opinion and cried for help to other admins no gain. What I've deleted is due to unreliable sources were referred to guardian, independent etc. As the user @generalrelative insist on that newspaper aren't reliable I said ok you didn't lett me add daily mail so I'm editing the page removing contents based on news agencies for making it a neutral page, unpromotional page. They wouldn't accept it either. Instead of discussion trying to get me blocked. That's situation Regards Freethinker6799 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC) P.s: clearly @generalrelative doing as a fan or something, I want the page be neutral, scientific, have all criticisms and stuffs. If it's ok to put content from guardian should be ok for me to add from daily mail. No doubt. Also, user before try to discuss it with a good way now trying to silence me, but it's not bad, it brings attention to the problem, I hope people could see it. Finally, people are going to die for the truth and freedom, so do I, frightening by blocking wouldn't stop me from holding truth and scientific neutrality. (Plus, so sorry to use title card but I've also going to hold a Ph.D in Humanities by a few months. Don't think that's based on ignorance. Sorry again) Freethinker6799 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Freethinker6799: As is noted in the discussion on the talk page, the Guardian is a reliable source, as is the BBC, while the Daily Mail is not (see WP:DAILYMAIL). I'm looking at your talk page, and you requested a third opinion before any discussion was held on the article's talk page (or at least, you failed to link to it). So there's certainly the appearance that you tried to bludgeon material into the article, and when you couldn't, you removed sourced material to make a point. —C.Fred (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Appears to be a case of WP:COMPETENCE. User has been repeatedly warned about edit warring, no comprehensible content discussion was sought on the article talk page; instead, more edit warring. Attempts to politely educate them about reliable sources seem to have been unsuccessful. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Throast it maybe anything while my intention wasn't war or competence. Yes I tried a lot, wasn't successful because the other part wasn't inclined to participate. I failed in bring it on third opinion, yes, true, because that's the first time such a thing happened. I edited many articles no problems brought on, with my previous account I lost. While it was disagreements we solved it. This time was different and I am thinking there's not any fairness and justice here. If you're trying to justify blockage go on please it would be under freedom of speech, fairness, justice, etc however by Nero's fist c/o Tacitus Freethinker6799 (talk) Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Freethinker6799: I'm going to recommend against playing the "freedom of speech" card. Freedom of speech on Wikipedia means there is no law that keeps Wikipedia from writing policies that allow us to block people for misconduct on this private server. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred you clearly determined your side, I'm not talking about freedom of speech for articles, but about instead of discussion, @Generalrelative trying to get me blocked. Isn't it related to? Or maybe that my English isn't sound like native, so I should be blocked. Freethinker6799 (talk) Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred dear friend Yes I did, I left messages on @Generalrelative no achievement, then I seek third opinion, then seeking dispute resolution, then personally invite people to take part, in my contribution you can find them. Also it's stated guardian blogs aren't reliable, that part is from bookpart, independent isn't reliable.

Writing to him directly is not the same as discussing it on the article's talk page. The latter gets viewed by more users.

I haven't looked at the Independent's reliability lately. Nowhere did you state that the Guardian material (or the BBC material, for that matter) was from blogs. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not into school people by force while I appreciate if you see it a little impartial, neutral. If you was me what would you do? I tried all options I had. Now youre accusing me on revenge or something. It's not fair. Not true. If you be fair in this case would be great. Freethinker6799 (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You'll notice I haven't taken any action against you, because I'm hoping that you (continue to) discuss the situation at the article's talk page and reach some consensus about it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Please slow down Freethinker6799. This battleground approach will not get you anywhere. As I explained earlier, if you can't reach consensus, you'd better start an RFC or DRN. But alas, you have decided to go in a different direction. And now I'm really afraid that you'll have a hard time after this revert. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Pinsky Dear, I'm having hadd time not because of that but because of the fact that truth and justice don't mean anything apparently.

Or maybe this fact that I'm responding to all of you it's not a good idea, the opposite part clearly chose silence.

Yes you said, I took your advice put notice and invitation to discuss, after that there were many reverts, not just me, others also participated. If wrong, wrong for all.

Additionally, how you would feel if someone wanted you to be cut because of language skill? But, I did see your kind and sweet attitude, thanks for it. Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred No problem with continue it in talk page with participation of those who are here .

Well I wasn't about to say you tooke measures against anyone, but while clearly there's a small percentage of false reporting why you didn't notice other party actions into assessment?

Freethinker6799 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Freethinker6799: That's a non-issue here. You were reverted by multiple editors, so none of them case close to violating WP:3RR. You were the only one in peril of that. —C.Fred (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Since the edit warring behaviour has stopped, no action is necessary at this time. I trust that Freethinker6799 will not engage in future edit warring, so no actions will be necessary in the future, that they will review WP:RS, and that they will clearly explain their concerns with specific sources rather than doing a blanket removal of "all newspapers" or the like. —C.Fred (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  @C.Fred greetings. I liked to add something but we'll talk later. Whenever an escalated situation comes to a peaceful end, makes me happy, including this one. No, absolutely I'm not into edit warring or any kind of cyber aggression towards people.about guardian I've many things to prove they're not reliable. I saw that page by chance, while I know all of them, so I just added what I had in my mind, then things got weird. Yes, perhaps I should give it a Time & meanwhile I'll search for more reliable sources, then we may discuss it.

  Anyway, you expressed trust in me, I've to say I'm flattered. Looks like I'm talkative, so, that's it. Best regards. Freethinker6799 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [169]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [170] June 5, 14:23
2. [171] June 5, 14:53
3. [172] June 5, 15:01
4. [173] June 6, 09:29
5. [174] June 6, 09:32
6. [175] June 6, 11:25

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [176]

Comments:
Earthh has reverted 6 times to try and force a change into the article, reverting three separate editors over this span. Rather than take to the talk page, as numerous users have requested, they insist only on reverting. Toa Nidhiki05 15:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

You have been reverting multiple users who object to your edits since March, this is why you were notified for persistently edit warring without using the talk page [177]. This is getting ridiculous.--Earthh (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed ridiculous that you've reverted six times in a 24-hour span rather than engage on the talk page like you've been asked to. Toa Nidhiki05 15:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think you meant to link this dif for the 3RR warning on Earthh's talk page, but you linked a dif on the Morbius article instead. Note that Earthh has since removed the 3RR warning from their talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, ty for the catch. Toa Nidhiki05 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to note, when reviewing this, that Earthh has previously reported OP for edits on this article. There seems to be an ongoing dispute on content in this article. Not taking sides, but I wanted to include this just as a reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protected I agree that Earthh violated 3RR, but they have not edited for two days now, so blocking would be rather superfluous at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [179]
2. [180]
3. [181]
4. [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [185]

Comments:

• There was an effort to reason with them on their talkpage and help them understand that the content they are removing, shouldn't be removed from the article, but problem for me is that, in their arguments, they are distorting the meaning of the removed content, so that they justify their removal in the first place; a characteristic pattern I have seen on POV warriors. Checking this user, I can't help but note that it has characteristics of a WP:SPA; a totally new account with 0 edits, yet appears to be an experienced user, who chose, for their first edit an article of a sensitive topic area, to edit war upon, violating the 3RR, not trying to WP:BRD and ignoring my call for WP:CONSENSUS before attempting to reinstate their edits. During my efforts to reason with them on their talk page, they threatened me that I "will regret it", [186] which is unacceptable and made me realize that this user may WP:NOTHERE, hence filling this ANI report. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked For one thing, this is ANEW, not ANI. For the second, while no doubt the user (who really seems, from the username even, to be an SPA, I concede) is edit warring, he stopped after three reverts. And for the third, he hasn't edited in over a day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice_in_Hinduism#

Edit warring. Page protect needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.246.125.119 (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2022 (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. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Rûm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:A458:447B:1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]
4. [190]

Comments: (This user also appears to be 2A02:A458:447B:1:95CA:A546:8549:B60A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The later editor has been warned on his/her talk page and told to start a talk page discussion rather than keep reverting back to their preferred version.Blue Riband► 20:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC))

IP keeps removing sourced information about the Iranian connection of the name of the article because it contradicts his opinion. Please also see [191]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Sidhu Moose Wala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keshavv1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Political status of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC) to 01:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */ I fixed a typo"
   2. 01:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092233629 by M.Bitton (talk) This isn't a dead link, this an inexistent link, please stop your vandalism."
2. 00:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Positions of other states */ Added a section that was removed concerning the petition written by 28 AU members demanding the expulsion of the Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic."
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC) to 00:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 23:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */ The sprasd is the "news" agency of the Polisario front it's quality of informantion not only is questionable, but is not even verifiable by any other media, as you can see in this linked article(https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html), the tone of the articles and it's statements make it sounds like propaganda"
   2. 00:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */ Having visited this "spsrasd" it appears too many of their informations are not backed up by any independant media as shown here (https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html), and a huge part of the non SPSRASD sources are links with failed verifications"
4. 23:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Positions of other states */ added more sources"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC) to 22:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 22:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */ Not only 99% of the sources come from 1 website, but this website it self is nothing more but the Polisario's "News" agency which is far very far from an obejctif and reliable source"
   2. 22:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Political status of Western Sahara."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Disruptive tagging */ new section"
2. 00:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Disruptive tagging */"
3. Link to the discussion

Comments:

• Please note that they kept ignoring me and editing after I started a talk page discussion and pinged them twice. When they finally replied (after cleaning their talk page history, see diff and diff), they pretended not to understand the concerns and reverted while accusing me "vandalism" (see edit summary). M.Bitton (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
• Also, judging by their edit history, their POV pushing with regard to Western Sahara and the concerned article goes back as far as 2015, with some of the sources that they are tagging today being there ever since. M.Bitton (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  A quick comment on the wall of mumbo jumbo that they left below: even if one overlooks the repeated baseless accusations of "lying" and assumes that Tsarisco doesn't know the difference between a dead link and a source that failed verification (btw, the two sources that they cited and described as "completely invented" are archived), the fact that they fv tagged these two accessible sources[192][193] (that support the statement) and edit warred over the tagging remains unjustifiable. M.Bitton (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

   Note: Believe it or not, they are now edit warring on the talk page. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  "M.Bitton" has been trying to revert the title of my report in the talk page (Wholesale change 2022 about the Wikipedia section of the article "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" which is the subject of my Wholesale change 2022 report in the talk page) which has been fully solved and fixed and therefore no longer relevant... I think this is clearly considered "WP:VANDAL". Tsarisco (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  This last comment by the other editor will explain to you Tzarisco's eagerness to change the title of the section while the discussion is still ongoing. M.Bitton (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Some* of my last comments are about Morocco World News, a source that *I* did not put in fact as I said previously multiple times below in my full explanation 99% of my added sources are completely independents... and have nothing to do whatsoever with the section in question of my wholesale change 2022 report *which is about the section "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" * which M.Bitton is complainng about, the 2 Moroccan sources in question "North Africa Report" and "Morocco World News" that again I did not add, are tied to the previous "Wholesale Change" that was put in 2020 concerning the section "States supporting Morocco's autonomy proposal" Tsarisco (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• The OP is complaining mainly in this report about my addition of the template {{better source needed}} and {{unreliable sources}} in this section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=1092218029&oldid=1092063420&diffmode=source}}, M.Bitton and several activist editors have been putting extremely questionnable and non factual informations about several section on the Page: Political status of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), by not only refusing to provide more than one independent source in the several claims that they are presenting and relying exclusively on just one which is the SPSRASD website, a website fully controlled by the belligerent force Morocco is fighting in Western Sahara which is the Polisario front , and with many articles that are no different than North Korean propaganda as you can all see here (https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html an article written by the Polisario with completely wild statements that aren't verifiable by any third party independent sources same for these ones https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/29/39909.html or this one https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/08/39543.html and many others. Various wild informations about "heavy human and material losses" currently taking place, that no media either in Morocco, Europe, Asia or anywhere in the world for the that matter have confirmed). As for the last section of his complaint "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" I have already answered them (verifiable in the Talk:Political status of Western Sahara - Wikipedia) so they are clearly lying. M.Bitton in that Talk section have been asking me useless rhetorical questions when Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of factually and accuracy (i.e multiples independent AND reliable sources), but M.Bitton seems to be failing to see the difference between an opinion and a fact backed by multiple independents sources , such as his useless rhetorical questions here: "::::Do you, or anyone for that matter, doubt that countries such as Algeria and South Africa support SADR?M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC) (Editing Talk:Political status of Western Sahara - Wikipedia) instead of putting themselves in the shoes of the potential reader who might be potentially misled, and failing to provide more than one source that is at the very least reliable. This report is nothing more but an attempt to discredit me without providing any proof and lying on top of it. They have been trying to revert my edits with that have the tag {{failed verification}} pretending that it's just a dead link here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1092233629&oldid=1092232732&diffmode=source) when in reality it's just a completely invented source (this is the reference number 59 mentioned in the article "https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm%7Cpublisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York" (you can verify it by pretty much just replacing anything that comes after https://www.un.org/News/ in this link by any word the "/org" "https://[www].[un].[org]/[insert word]" which will give the same result which is ERROR 404 and therefore artificially create a source and pretend that it's just a "dead link" ) a tactic used multiple times like here as well in the "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" reference 125 (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/gaspd507.doc.htm ). Some references added such the ref number 154 ("DPRK Diplomatic Relations".) do not even mention neither the Polisario or the Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic if you use the command ctrl+f in your browser which imply that there is quite a lot of false info in this section that I have been warning about hence the two tags "unreliable source" and "better source" needed Tsarisco

And regardless of whether the source is reliable or not (it is not, as it is a press organ controlled by the Polisario that writes many fake news articles such as here https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html without any additional media confirming the various events on the ground and claims presented, same for these ones https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/29/39909.html or this one https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/08/39543.html and many others. Various wild informations about "heavy human and material losses" currently taking place, that no media either in Morocco, Europe, Asia or anywhere in the world for the that matter have confirmed)), one should always at least try to confirm statements through multiples additional independent media, hence why I added (One source|section) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarisco (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

And I have added multiple sources that are completely independents from both Morocco and the Polisario front to add more factuality and accuracy in order to resolve the issue related to the tags "This section's factual accuracy is disputed" of the article (in the section "States supporting Morocco's autonomy proposal"), such as theses sources that took me hours to find them all such as ^[1][2][3]) and ^[4][5][6][7] Tsarisco

and sources that I have taken directly from the UN website such here ^[8] and many many others over the course of multiple weeks... You can see all my added sources here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1089733130&oldid=1089718424&diffmode=source), here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1092226247&oldid=1092222393&diffmode=source) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1089714417&oldid=1089710902&diffmode=source Tsarisco

-Just an update on what happened, other editors seems to agree me on the addition of both tags (unreliable source) and (better source needed) and the entire section has been cleaned accordingly (States supporting the SADR/Polisario), the tags have therefore been removed. However M.Bitton still considerer here in this report my addition of new (independants sources from Morocco and the Polisario such as Reuteurs) as.... vandalism.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarisco (talk • contribs) 19:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a lie. For starters, I never used the word "vandalism" (unlike you), and second, the editor that you mentioned is puzzled by your stance, as after making them look for third party sources, you changed your mind about using them and are now trying desperately to give a pro-Moroccan source a pass. Anyway, this is irrelevant to your disruptive editing that I highlighted above (see first comments). M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems like you fail to understand what "disruptive editing" is . As correcting a typo such as here in your first complain in this report "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1092235986&diffmode=source" is far from being considered "disrupting editing" per Wikipedia standards, it seems like this whole report is just about you being proved wrong and having your feeling hurt, I apologized if that's the latter.

This report is mainly about the addition of the tags (unreliable source) and (better source needed) in the section (States supporting SADR/Polisario) of the article and I have arrived to the conclusion with other editors that SPSRASD is not reliable and THEREFORE that entire section has been cleaned today by them...

Good day. Tsarisco (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edit history speaks for itself. As for the report, I said what I needed to say in the first comments (my last was just a response to your lies). I'm done here (unless someone else wants me to elaborate). M.Bitton (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Also to further clarify, as written in my answer above, you can verify all my added sources, The overwhelming majority of my sources are strictly international media and organisations... as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1089733130&oldid=1089718424&diffmode=source ; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1092226247&oldid=1092222393&diffmode=source ; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1089714417&oldid=1089710902&diffmode=source Tsarisco (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Tsarisco is warned. They may be blocked if they revert the article again (or revert any talk page headers) without first getting a consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Iga Świątek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 5.43.81.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC) "removed scam"
2. 13:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "I think this is improvement; Undid revision 1092284699 by 4TheWynne (talk)"
3. 08:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "improved; Undid revision 1092272258 by Fyunck(click) (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Iga Świątek."
2. 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Iga Świątek."
3. 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a high profile tennis player and several of us have had to keep reverting this anon IP. I see the same is happening at the Renault article with this same anon IP. Also at the Renault talk page. Warnings haven't helped as they simply remove them. Can we get a block on this IP? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing has since continued. Also worth noting that the IP has been removing their warnings and they've demonstrated enough Wiki knowledge to prove that they are not a newbie/they know exactly what they're doing. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I would have to agree that User:5.43.81.203 did violate 3RR and is now Edit Warring Chip3004 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Favonian (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092138394 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) Change caused citation error"
2. 10:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092133066 by BeŻet (talk) Put back removed sources and also fix formatting bug"
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC) to 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 10:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092116980 by SquareInARoundHole (talk) It does say that, scroll back, stop trying to insert words in his mouth"
   2. 10:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092120167 by Rosbif73 (talk) It's no more in sources than the POV commentary already used, this properly conveys the context"
4. 06:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Correct with original source and put back clarification"
5. 03:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092083096 by Firefangledfeathers (talk) It's not interpretation, its directly in the original source"
6. Now at 6RR
7. 7th revert at 00:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092148380 by SquareInARoundHole (talk) It is not WP:SYNTH as it's direct quotation, please don't remove content just because you disagree what was said"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Reverts at Musk */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Out of context quoting */ Reply"

Comments:

The 10:45 and 10:46 edits are consecutive, so they count as just one for the purposes of 3RR. Still a 5RR situation. In response to a request to revert, they indicated their familiarity with BRD, but that does not appear to have stopped them from repeatedly restoring their disputed changes without building consensus at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Now at 6RR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers It's a completely unrelated change and you know it. Ergzay (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

But just to document it for clarity, that source was removed because the source contains no reference to the content before it. It's simply an unrelated factoid about a company that Elon is CEO of. By putting it there it tries to tell the reader that Elon is personally responsible for spreading COVID all across his company despite the company having very well documented mask requirements and covid protection policies. Ergzay (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is demonstrable false. The source removed in the sixth revert supports the "not at risk" quote. It's a reliable source from more than a year later, demonstrating lasting coverage. Addressing your "completely unrelated" comment, 3RR applies to reverts "whether involving the same or different material". You're an experienced user who has previously been given an admin warning for edit warring. Is this a misunderstanding or a disagreement with the policy? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers How does it support the "not at risk" statement? SpaceX having an epidemic (which companies were having all over this country) is not indicative or relevant of Elon Musk's personal risk. Also I have never received a warning for edit warring before. Ergzay (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You said "the source contains no reference to the content before it". That's not true, as source you removed says Musk "made headlines last year for initially resisting getting vaccinated against the disease, saying in a New York Times podcast that "I'm not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids." And you received an EW warning from EdJohnston in this 2018 message. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That warning wasn't a warning. It was a mistake by the administrator that I didn't want to bother with chasing down the method of getting it reversed as I was just sick of the issue by that point. The decision was to drop the noticeboard request and for me to revert my edits, which I did (if I'm remembering correctly). Then for some reason the administrator misunderstood something and stuck a warning on. Ergzay (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I missed that quote in the article, but it's the same quote used in the other article so it's simply repeated, see WP:CITEKILL which still applies and notably WP:REFBOMB which is what you were doing. Ergzay (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ergzay: I think a plain reading of CITEKILL shows my edit was fine, and REFBOMB doesn't apply at all. Either way, removing a reliable source to avoid a CITEKILL problem is not one of the 3RR exemptions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers misrepresents the situation to his own advantage as I propose multiple alternative edits of adding information that he reverts every time I add the information. No version is acceptable no matter how I source it or write it as it violates his personally held beliefs in his hatred for Elon Musk. He has shown no interest in discussion and just threats of 3RR and then noticeboard action. Ergzay (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Your allegations about my personally held beliefs are unfounded and untrue, as are your claims about the reasons for my edits. If you'd like to remove that part of your comment, you can remove this comment of mine if no one else has yet responded (see WP:MUTUAL). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe Ergzay is here to build an encyclopedia. All they do is revert, bludgeon and revert. Schierbecker (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Schierbecker That is simply incorrect. The page on Elon Musk has quality issues and I'm working on fixing them. Ergzay (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's hilarious that you think this is the right way to do that. Schierbecker (talk)

• Not blocked Per the talk page, the dispute that led to this seems to have been resolved with a decision to move the content in question to Views of Elon Musk. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• User:Daniel Case, And yet they persist! Schierbecker (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  He's been doing a lot more discussing on the talk page lately than editing the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jataka tales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Arohan19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092697331 by C.Fred (talk). Talk never initiated. Reverting to last source that correctly uses language from cited sources. Please refrain from engaging in edit wars."
2. 23:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092695499 by MrOllie (talk). "In any case, Wikipedia goes with what the reliable sources say, not what seems right to us as editors personally". Either find. source for your claim, or stop making unfounded edits."
3. 23:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "MrOllie, I'd recommend you read the sources cited for this article before reverting my edits. the source "Narratives: South Asia" says in its first paragraph "The Indian tradition recog- nized two partly overlapping narrative genres, jātaka and avadāna, which pertain to the biography of the Buddha and his disciples and illustrate the doctrine of the moral causality of actions and that of rebirth in different ways". If you're going to keep reverting my corrections to the article I'll report you"
4. 20:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092670389 by MrOllie (talk) The Jatakas were written in India. South Asia does not refer to premodern India."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from article space. User still has access to talk pages to discuss changes. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the user as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: FB MSBS Grot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.237.86.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [194]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [195]
2. [196]
3. [197]
4. [198]
5. [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [200]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FB MSBS Grot#Comment on controversy and Talk:FB MSBS Grot#Will this article ever mention that there is or was a controversy?

Comments:
IP user 91.237.86.201 has violated the 3RR rule within the last 24 hours, despite being repeatedly asked to review the article's talk page, which already contained several discussions regarding the questionable material. Also, since in the past IP user has tried to re-insert that very same text, the page was locked by Deepfriedokra on 28 April, 2022 [201], the protection template was removed on 28 May, 2022 [202] and IP user has returned and re-added the questionable text despite not gaining any consensus and in the process disregarding past talk page discussions. Also, IP user continued to re-add the disputed text while a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [203] case was pending regarding the IP user's disruptive editing (now and in the past) in connection to the FB MSBS Grot article. --E-960 (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked As noted at AN/I, the issue behind this is the reliability of a particular source. There has been edit warring but for now it has stopped. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Giannis Antetokounmpo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "This is not even an argument."
2. 14:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Sometimes reading previous edit summaries could be useful."
3. 15:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "His nationality already exists at infobox, on the lead we care only about very specific info and judging from the fact he has spent little time of his life to Nigeria he cannot be considered as a citizen of the country (at least on the lead)."
4. 11:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Removing non-lead material per MOS:BLPLEAD"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has received multiple warnings already here —Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 11:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC) to 15:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Giannis Antetokounmpo

Comments:

At least I were providing arguments for all of my changes. The other user on the other hand none, they were just on a reverting process as you can see [204] and [205]. AnotherGuyThere (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

"Just on a reverting process"?! What does that even mean? I was restoring sourced content, while you were removing reliable sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

AnotherGuyThere also appears to be in an edit war at Ed Sheeran over the use of "singer-songwriter".—Bagumba (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

They are the same user though. AnotherGuyThere (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring with the same user is OK for you?—Bagumba (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

See my talkpage and [206], my edit remained unchanged for 2 days since they started the edit war so neither was it a repeated one since substantial time passed between the other user that reverted my change and them nor did I start it judging from this. AnotherGuyThere (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the duplicate report. I got mixed up over exactly which page(s) this user is edit-warring on. In addition to the Ed Sheeran article, they also appear to have a problem with the Thomas Strakosha‎ article, where "Albanian" was being removed. It took literally a minute to find and add sources, but really, if someone is playing for the Albanian national football team, we are into WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Can an admin advise if a separate report is required for that latter article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Irony was unnecessary but yes, if nationality is not applicable then the fact that he is playing for a national team doesn't automatically mean he adopts the citizenship or it's an apparent fact he already owns it. So if you hadn't find the source, it could not have been put in the lead. AnotherGuyThere (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 08:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC) to 10:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 08:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Add the main references of Zand History"
   3. 09:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Add the main references of Zand History"
   4. 10:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "I added a necessary paragraph about Zand territory based on main resources of Zand History."
   5. 10:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Territory of Zand Dynasty in the zenith */"
   6. 10:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "I added a necessary paragraph about Zand territory based on main resources of Zand History."
2. 21:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 17:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 08:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC) ""
5. 22:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 08:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC) ""
7. 21:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC) ""
8. 10:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC) ""
9. 18:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ""
10. 17:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ""
11. 17:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "You are not a historian because you could not see the value of main sources! so you are not a worthy user to edit wikipedia pages! @Kailanmapper"
12. 17:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ""
13. 17:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "There are original and main books which pointed out to exact territory of Zand Dyansty. These book was written in Zand and early qajar period : Golshan Murad that i guess you can not read its hard text!: Makran and north of Oman sea is a part of Zand territory and a part of Kerman province. Giti Gusha that pointed out caucasus cities had obied to Zand Power in 1762. from Derbent until Yerevan Majmal o Tavarikh that wrote about obedience of of governor of Derbent to Zand Power in 1776"
14. 17:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC) "There are original and main books which pointed out to exact territory of Zand Dyansty. These book was written in Zand and early qajar period : Golshan Murad that i guess you can not read its hard text! this book was wrote in Zand period and author said: Makran and north of Oman sea is a part of Zand territory Giti Gusha that pointed out caucasus cities had obied to Zand Power. from Derbent until Yerevan Majmal o Tavarikh that wrote about obedience of"
15. 17:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) ""
16. 19:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC) ""
17. 10:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Comments:

User is bent on adding information in non-coherent English and non-WP:RS sources through sheer edit-warring. They have stated on numerous occassions that they will not rest before having succeeded. Not only have they violated WP:WAR and WP:CON, but looking at the diffs, I'd say there are some serious WP:CIR issues too. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• "your edit is unacceptable. i only put the right and original map. i wont let youto put this wrong map." [207] - LouisAragon (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, I think the other behavioral issues need a little more engagement before an indef becomes appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Dream (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Julian134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [208]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [212]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [213]

Comments:

This editor has nonstop been reverting other editors edits including myself without any good reason. Based on what I've seen, they act like the article is owned by them and no one else can't contribute to the article. Looking through the edit history, this editor has violated the guidelines by reverting more than 3 times. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 04:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked At this point he hasn't edited in a day, and you didn't post any evidence of an attempt to start a talk page discussion. Given that for both of you it does not seem like English is your first language, I'd try to discuss it—privately, in your native language (which I guess is Korean?), if that would work better—first. It does seem like Julian is a little confused. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Indus Valley Civilisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [214]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [215]
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User_talk:Johnbod#Spelling?, and the bottom of Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Requested_move_8_June_2022, and conversations in the edit summaries.

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

Comments:Nearly all about a drive-by capitalization dispute. Dicklyon has never edited this very contentious article afaik, but having tried an undiscussed WP:RM away from the title the article has had for years, absurdly claiming it was uncontentious, he launched a proper RM, which looks likely to fail. He then starts changing the article to his preferred style, away from that in the current title, and edit-warring to keep it that way (and incidentally restore spelling mistakes and ENGVAR breaches). Johnbod (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

My attempts to restore the status quo ante of case within the article while the discussion is ongoing were in 3 of 4 cases not reverts; I was trying to be responsive to comments in JohnBod's reverts, and in one case did not notice the spelling error inserted by the other over-capping editor. JohnBod just kept reverting me, even while I tried to get info from him about what his concerns were. In the end he added a new reason to over-cap, based on more capping back in August (which I have not been able t confirm; looks like it was pretty much equally mixed back then). Dicklyon (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The "version reverted to" is not even close. There is no common version involved. And the only edit warning was the one I gave JohnBod for repeatedly reverting me. Dicklyon (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

??I suggest people just look at the diffs supplied (and note how Dicklyon's standards of accuracy extend to his spelling of my username). Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I over-capped your Bod syllable. That version you linked as "Previous version reverted to" has the excess capitalization; I think you meant that's one I reverted from (the diff to the next version is what you've listed as my first revert, even though it was not quite a revert, but an attempt to undo a slightly earlier over-capitalization edit, as I discussed on the talk page). Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I ask the reviewing admin not only to evaluate the specifics of the 3RR report, but to consider, not for the first time, whether Dicklyon's overall approach to escalating capitalization disputes with other editors in their content areas is unproductive, morale-destroying, and damaging to collaboration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

NYB, why do jump on me with such nonsense whenever my name comes up? I haven't escalated anything here; I opened an RM discussion after my move was reverted; that's normal WP:BRD. Then Johnbod and another guy try to push everything to uppercase while the discussion is going on. What are you thinking is wrong with what I've done here? If you can't say, please at least retract your attack. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that when the editors on an article have a strong view on the preferred capitalization on that article, they should be left alone, and that pushing over-standardization in this area down people's throats has over the years done a massive amount of damage. But on reflection, that concern is beyond the scope of this board, so I will withdraw my comment as something for the reviewing admin to consider—but perhaps not as something for you to further consider. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I hear your opinion that MOS:CAPS should be ignored. Thank you for agreeing that that's beyond the scope of the current issue. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• In the midst of all the edits linked, I made this edit in which I corrected the spelling of center to centre and centers to centres in prose (ie in accordance with Br English and the engvar of the article) with the edit summary: ce engvar. To me, this appeared to be the spelling mistakes that Johnbod was referring to in their edit summary for the previous edit plus one where they stated: let's not restore the spelling mistakes. In that particular edit, Johnbod changed center to centre as well as the casing of civilisation. The preceding edit by Dicklyon had only changed the casing of civilisation. My edit was reverted by Johnbod here with the edit summary: rvt again - check the diff for several spelling mistakes (the first right at the top). While the title remains where it is, the text should match. In that revert, they changed the spelling of centers to centers but left centre. this edit by Dicklyon that followed included reinstating centres. This edit by Johnbod reinstated centers. In the midst of all this toing and frowing a legitimate and valid edit that improves the encyclopedia (albeit in a minor way) has been discarded and if people are wielding sticks around then perhaps one of them might be boomerang shaped. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I missed the 2nd "center", but you missed 5 "civilisatiion"s, which Dicklyon kept restoring, and were the spelling mistakes I referred to ("right at the top" etc). The fact of the matter is that Dicklyon broke 3RR and I didn't. It was unwise (but I think rather typical) of him to give me a warning for edit-warring (on my talk) when this was the case. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: List of EastEnders characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.135.146.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Regular characters */https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1623987/EastEnders-spoilers-Stuart-Highway-Peter-Beale-Lola-Pearce-exit"
2. 17:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Regular characters */"
3. 17:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Regular characters */"
4. 12:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Regular characters */Reverted as Lola is leaving"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC) "/* List of EastEnders characters */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been told very clearly that they are not sourcing their edits and adding unreliable sources and still haven’t listened to talk page messages. Blanchey (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple users have also tried to reason with them and resolve the matter, but to no avail as the IP continues to act incredibly foolish and will not stop disrupting the page. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

User is aware of this report although removed the message. They clearly don’t care nor are they here to cooperate with other editors. Blanchey (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to admit whilst I am here, I did edit a few times on the page. But with good intention and I was in no way trying to edit war and I do apologise for all that. But the IP is acting very ignorant blanking warnings and just not giving a damn, the behaviour is continuing and needs dealing with very fast. The EE characters page has already been requested for indefinite semi protection for auto confirmed users by DarkGlow which I believe is still a work in progress as it hasn’t been answered to yet.LordBossMaster100 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Theories about Alexander the Great in the Quran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whodatttt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [216]
2. [217]
3. [218]
4. [219]
5. [220]
6. [221]

Comments:

And this is without counting the reverts he made in the article whilst logged out. Please also see the ANI report [222]. Imo, this is a WP:NOTHERE user we're dealing with. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Now 6 reverts today on the one article. Doug Weller talk 20:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Indus Basin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Edit8384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [223]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [224]

1. [225]

1. [226]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [228]

Comments:
The last 3 reverts came under 50 minutes. User is not ready to discuss the issue on talk page and keeps reverting without reaching any consensus. User also lacks Competency and ability to cite and comprehend sources properly.

This account is obviously a WP:SPA, only created to push a point of view, because all the contibutions from this account are on the same article or related to it. I think an indefinite page block or topic ban from this topic would be effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitush7 (talk • contribs)

• I have redirected the POVFORK that is causing problem and was created by Sitush7 on 10 June. This user himself registered on 5 June and already knows everything that takes months or years to understand. It looks like a throw-away sock account was created to impersonate Sitush. @Bishonen and SpacemanSpiff: take a look. Wareon (talk) 03:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have found who's sock this is. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wildhorse3. Wareon (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Page deleted, sock blocked, time to close. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [229]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [230]
2. [231]
3. [232]
4. [233]
5. [234]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235][236]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [237]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [238]

Comments:
Hatrant insists on changing the subject's nationality from "American" to include his French citizenship even after they were told there was consensus that support only "American". KyleJoan^talk 10:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. We have a compromise for "American and French" you are just disagree with that... Hatrant (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no consensus on the talkpage for your edits. ––FormalDude talk 12:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no concensus for "American actor" too. Hatrant (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it's the clear WP:STATUSQUO. ––FormalDude talk 12:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems we have a new user whose first edit is a response in support of Hatrant's point. KyleJoan^talk 12:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked While his behavior making actual edits to the article is getting concerning, Hatrant has spent most of his time in the talk page discussion (albeit with his heels dug in). I don't feel this warrants a block (at least, not yet). If it is believed that he is creating sockpuppets, that should be taken up at SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Nupur Sharma (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Webberbrad007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092801636 by TrangaBellam (talk) The topic was discussed and the change was made post discussion. The onus of explaining removal of well sourced RS content is on you. TB - you are much more experienced to do this."
2. 17:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092795850 by TrangaBellam (talk) The Hindu is the newspaper of record and a RS as specified. Please discuss on tp before removing."
3. 14:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Comments about Muhammad */"
4. 23:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1092694503 by Kautilya3 (talk) Unwarranted revert of a reliable source. Please stick to facts and WP:AGF. If you have any specific concern with the wording from The Hindu, please explain in the talk page."
5. 19:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Comments about Muhammad */ replaced existing source with WP:RSPSS (The Hindu). Updated wording accordingly."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nupur Sharma (politician)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS */ Reply"
2. 11:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS */ Reply"
3. 13:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS */ Query"
4. 14:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "/* reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS */ Reply"

Comments:

The user did open a talk page discussion at Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS but it is just an instance of WP:IDHT, stonewalling and self-righteousness. The repeated reinstatement of his preferred version continues. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to answer any questions any admin might have and hope they review the comments and the discussion here. The version by Kautilya3 was violative of WP:NPOV AND WP:SYNTH which they had fixed here^[1] after discussion on the talk page. The content I have subsequently added is well sourced and from the Newspaper of record. There is no valid rationale provided for removal of the well sourced content. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• All five edits show the editor inserting his preferred content, something like "criticised the party and the government for abandoning her at a time when she had received death threats over her remarks". In the initial edits (#4 and #5), he overwrote the existing content with his preferred version. In later versions, he just inserted it ahead of the other content, giving it primacy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree - the entire discussion is an exercise in stonewalling. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam are both party to the revert cycle in this case. Please read the discussion on that page, and refer the WP:RSPSS to confirm that the only source in this case which meets the Newspaper of record and generally reliable levels is the one I had used. Irrespective, the material they have sourced from sources not appearing on the generally reliable list has not been removed. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Explaining the chronology so far:

1. I updated wording from the Newspaper of record here with explanation

2. Kautilya3 reverted me here accusing me of whitewashing

3. I reverted Kautilya3 stating that it was an unwarranted revert of reliable source and asking him to WP:AGF

4. Kautilya3 reverted me again here claiming that there is a dispute and asking I maintain WP:STATUSQUO and take it to the talk page

5. I start the talk page discussion here

6. During discussion, another user highlighted that I had used very similar wording from The Hindu, which I acknowledged to be a valid critique and stated that my wording should be updated. However, that wasn't Kautilya3's issue.

7. Kautilya3 accused me of gaslighting on the talk page. He asked me to explain what was my issue with current wording stating that WP:ONUS is on me

8. I asked Kautilya3 to refrain from imputing motives and stick to WP:AGF. I explained WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issues with the current wording with evidence.

9. Instead of responding to those issues, Kautilya3 states that my suggested source was offhand and off-topic. They also claim that there are plenty of prominent politicians who supported Nupur Sharma

10. I respond that this isn't addressing the issues I had raised, which Kautilya3 has asked me to explain in #7. I also stand by my source which is the Newspaper of record and generally reliable per WP:RSPSS

11. Kautilya3 again doesn't respond to the issues I had highlighted in #8. They ask me counter questions about whether their source isn't reliable and whether I will use whatever The Hindu says that strikes my fancy and reproduce verbatim (I had acknowledged this as a drawback of my initial wording in #6 above)

12. The other user from #6 highlighted that two members of the BJP had supported Nupur Sharma and supported the existing text.

13. I responded to this user asking whether he has reviewed the issues I had highlighted with the existing wording.

14. Kautilya3 updated the wording of the existing text to address the issues I had highlighted but didn't mention it on the talk page. I acknowledged it on the tp and suggested that I will now add the non-contentious parts of The Hindu news article asking for rationale if there was indeed any objection now.

15. I update the page adding the so far non-contentious wording from The Hindu article

16. Kautilya3 continued his accusation of my first draft as whitewashing calling that WP:UNDUE Note: their issue wasn't with the latest wording

17. I again ask Kautilya3 to not impute motives. I clarify that I was using an RS and in any case, the wording that they had an issue with wasn't in the update I had made

This is where I had hoped it had ended.

18. TrangaBellam comes along and accuses me of sealioning on this article, accuses me of sealioning on another article and threatens to have me topic-banned. They revert my update.

19. I respond to the accusation stating that I would indeed prefer an admin to review all this. I explain the updates I had made on the other article's talk page (that article I can't edit anyway, given that it is extended-protected)

20. There was no discussion about any objection to the latest wording, so I revert TrangaBellam asking them to discuss on the talk page

21. On the talk page, I ask TrangaBellam what their objection is to the wording I had updated

22. TrangaBellam again reverts me and states that this is WP:VNOTSUFF and only The Hindu mentioned the death threats to Nupur Sharma. On talk page, they state that stating that they support Nupur Sharma because of death threats might be a cover by BJP politicians. They add an opinion piece from thewire.in

23. I respond that it might well be a cover, but it isn't for Wiki editors to determine

24. TrangaBellam questions my comprehension abilities. They ask me whether I saw the opinion piece from thewire.in

25. I state that an opinion piece in thewire.in doesn't disprove the news article from The Hindu. I also ask them to stick to logical arguments and avoid personal attacks. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Webberbrad007, NO ONE can follow what you are doing here, but I think it's plain to see from the talk page that you are editing against consensus. Rather than drop a block on you I have reverted, and I hope that is enough of a warning. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for giving this your time Drmies. Please see the chronology above. I wrote it a short while ago because I had expected that this issue might be difficult to follow for an uninvolved admin. I hope you will be able to understand the situation better then. There was no valid objection to my latest wording, but if after reading the chronology, you still believe in the revert, I will start an RFC for that wording because these two editors have a strange objection based on their opinion and an opinion piece from thewire.in. If you search for the news, you will notice the threats of violence - it isn't a secret or only on The Hindu's news article. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Whether something was a valid objection or not is a question of judgment. My interest here is not understanding your 25-point chronology, but rather stopping the disruption. As soon as you stop reverting/edit warring, which I hope is now, you can hash the rest out on the talk page--not on this forum. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: TerraCycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.187.88.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [239]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [240]
2. [241]
3. [242]
4. [243]

Diffs of the other's reverts:

1. [244] (205.220.129.18)
2. [245] (47.198.237.50)
3. [246] (108.35.84.253)
4. [247] (47.198.237.50)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [248], [249]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [250], [251]

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

Comments:
It started when 81.187.88.97 added a section about criticisms about the company. Within four hours, 12.218.204.2 removed parts of it, saying it was unsourced and not in the implied sources. And that basically continued till today, where 81.187.88.97 says it's whitewashing, and, 47.198.237.50 now, saying it's reducing bloat. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 20:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. The "difference" is merely one of wording. IP editor 81.187.88.97 wrote, poorly:

Criticism 2021 lawsuit In November 2021, TerraCycle and several consumer goods companies including Coca-Cola that were participating in TerraCycle's recycling programs settled a lawsuit brought by Last Beach Cleanup, which alleged that product labelling relating to the scheme was misleading because it did not disclose that there were limits to the total quantity of packaging that would be recycled through TerraCycle under the terms of some company's participation.[44] As part of the settlement, the consumer goods companies agreed to make changes to labelling, and TerraCycle paid Last Beach Cleanup's legal fees and agreed to make additional changes to its program.

Panorama documentary In May 2022, the BBC aired a Panorama documentary investigating TerraCycle's UK plastics recycling scheme, reporting that bales of packaging collected and processed on behalf of Terracycle were illegally shipped to Bulgaria as waste instead of being recycled in the UK.[45] In response, TerraCycle claimed that the bales were accidentally shipped to Bulgaria after being loaded onto the incorrect vehicle by a trainee fork lift driver. TerraCycle also claimed the bales were subsequently tracked down and returned to the UK to be recycled.

The same documentary addressed questions about the availability of collection points, the overall percentage of packaging collected (amounting to around 1% for some sampled types), and allegations that TerraCycle's plastics recycling schemes, and its associated marketing, amount to greenwashing that is delaying or hampering more effective action on plastics waste.

While the content is more than warranted on the page, it's poorly written. Verbose. This isn't an edit war. The issue is the quality of the writing. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

> Thank you. The "difference" is merely one of wording.

As illustrated on the talk page for the article, this is false. The above editing entity has repeatedly deleted content under the guise of editing for style. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It does not mattter what you think, you already violated WP:3RR, it is already an violation of 3RR, which will result in a block. Chip3004 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

For one example:

In May 2022, the BBC aired a Panorama documentary investigating TerraCycle's UK plastics recycling scheme, reporting that bales of packaging collected and processed on behalf of Terracycle were illegally shipped to Bulgaria as waste instead of being recycled in the UK. Seeing this in the source but better prose would be:

In May 2022, the BBC aired a documentary reported that bales of packaging collected and processed on behalf of Terracycle were shipped to Bulgaria as waste instead of being recycled in the UK. Not verbose. also "illegal" isn't in the source.

In response, TerraCycle claimed that the bales were accidentally shipped to Bulgaria after being loaded onto the incorrect vehicle by a trainee fork lift driver. TerraCycle also claimed the bales were subsequently tracked down and returned to the UK to be recycled. Not seeing this in the source

The same documentary addressed questions about the availability of collection points, the overall percentage of packaging collected (amounting to around 1% for some sampled types), and allegations that TerraCycle's plastics recycling schemes, and its associated marketing, amount to greenwashing that is delaying or hampering more effective action on plastics waste. Not seeing this in the source

This is on the talk page.

In summary, this is an encyclopedic writing issue. Not an issue of edit warring. That said, it needs sorting. 47.198.237.50 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A reply to the above section (which was originally posted to the article's talk page) has quotations from the source material backing up all of the referenced content. The ambiguity of "illegal" (which referenced a quotation from TerraCycle's CEO) has been removed.I also notice that the bolded paragraph has two separate mistakes ("reported" rather than "reporting", and "Terracycle" rather than "TerraCycle"), which is somewhat odd from an entity ostensibly concerned with style/grammar, and not instead with minimising/deleting information about criticism of TerraCycle. 81.187.88.97 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Page protected for 2 weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Sidhu Moose Wala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Death */ Grammatical correction, and used more accurate and professional English language rather than crude "street talk." @Fylindfotberserk - please note, we want to keep Wikipedia professional and not crude. Let's use English professionally. And don't be an online bully."
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Language was a little violent, neutralized this phrase "shot dead" bot "attacked by armed assailants""
   2. 15:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Changed language to clearly reflect the reference. These are all assumptions. They should not sound like conclusions. Case is ongoing. As new evidence comes to light, we will be able to change these lines accordingly."
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC) to 15:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
   1. 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Changed phrasing to give context to make it more factual/neutral. Prior language was biased and decisive."
   2. 15:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "This line was incorrect. Old Skool was sung by both Prem Dhillon and Moosewala, and not Prem Dhillon alone. I have corrected it and added a reference to the song."
   3. 15:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "I have neutralized the language on these two sub-section titles. It was previously biased language that assumed a certain stance."
   4. 15:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "grammar correction. Changed "was" to "were""
   5. 15:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Neutralized the language. It was biased and slightly incorrect."
4. 15:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "We can change his name back, but please don't undo my changes, as I have made other language changes, and added more references. You are undoing all of that. Undid revision 1093101913 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
5. 15:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Venkat: please don't undo my changes. I have cleared a lot of controversial language use. You are deleting a lot of hard work when you continue to undo my changes. Also, please look at every news report. Not twitter alone. His name is incorrect. It is not Sidhu Moose Wala. It is Sidhu Moosewala.Undid revision 1093101482 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
6. 15:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093100003 by Venkat TL (talk)"
7. 14:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "The name was incorrect in the article title and across the entire article. It is "Moosewala" and NOT "Moose Wala." It is the former across his discography, social media pages and news articles. So I have corrected it across the article. Furthermore, in two places I have corrected outdated and biased language to make it more fact-based/neutral."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sidhu Moose Wala."
2. 15:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
3. 15:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"
4. 15:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* June 2022 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Moose Wala vs Moosewala */"
2. 15:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "/* Moose Wala vs Moosewala */"

Comments:

Revert war and disruptive editing. Changing common name of the subject that resulted in syntax error (broken image files, etc). Keeps on changing reliably sourced content in the name of 'neutrality' and 'grammar correction' [252] [253] [254] despite multiple requests to engage in teh article talk page. Also note the accusation here. Seems like WP:LISTEN and/or WP:CIR. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked Guneeta did come really close to the line with that issue of Moosewala vs. Moose wala, and their refusal to discuss outside of edit summaries, but he stepped off it afterwards and as I write has not edited in 12 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 02:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 12:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been persistently adding an item to a list on the article without any sign of it being notable by Wikipedia's standards (unsourced) and seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia is a directory, and has been told otherwise. 1 2 —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked This is really more a spamming issue, and user has not done so since the last time they were warned for that. Their talk page seems to suggest they're giving up. If they resume this behavior, report it at AIV, not here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Asjad Raza Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC) "You are now edit warring and pushing an agenda, stop it now, you need to prove from multiple sources that Asjad is the Grand Mufti of India."
2. 17:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1093288998 by Praxidicae (talk) oops, again praxidecay , removed the so called blog now"
3. 16:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC) "You need multiple good quality sources to make any extraordinary claim such as Grand Mufti of India, from Jagran it is clear that his position is disputed. Also we have separate article in Grand Mufti of India."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Asjad Raza Khan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

yet again, we are back here about the same article and Dove's talk's unwillingness to engage with anyone - they claim none of the sources are reliable but refuse to explain which, despite a consensus (per WP:RSP that they are) and in fact, after their absence, which was caused by several warnings on this exact matter, they immediately returned to also add a spam blog, and now they're trolling me on my talk page, trolling the article and accusing anyone who questions their edits of an agenda while continuing to remove sourced information. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that 7/9 sources there call him the Mufti, and several others that aren't included, including this one. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: (edit conflict) yet again, we are back here about the same article. When were we here before?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought I'd previously reported them when they were on an edit warring binge before they were warned by TNT, but I guess not. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain which source have you added for an agenda which you were pushing? Also per my knowledge of English wikipedia I have not violated Wikipedia:3R. Admins please note that she is abusing me with words such as bullshit and all. Many thanks. Dove's talk (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no agenda - but feel free to substantiate your claims that I do. And feel free to link to any abuse, calling your harassment of me bullshit by copying my exact wording in a comment and templating me when I've only edited the article two times, especially after you've been warned by TheresNoTime for this exact behavior previously, is not abuse nor was it unwarranted. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Pretty silly, I thought you might know about the difference between a Mufti and Grand Mufti. In your edits you were repeatedly restoring Asjad being Grand Mufti of India without providing any source for such an extraordinary claim. Hope I am clear now. Dove's talk (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23 after a quick look at this, copying someone's boilerplate straght back to them (with comment) [255] and referring to Praxidicae as "Praxidecay" [256] are IMO indistinguishable from trolling, frankly ... Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Echoing back comments isn't new (ref this) for them.. — TNT (talk • she/her) 17:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite please also see the warning from TNT a month ago about this exact same thing that they did to them. Copying and pasting their comments...and indeed it does feel a lot like trolling, especially given their edit warring previously to restore a blacklisted source. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite and now they've continued on with their baseless attacks and accusations of an agenda in the discussion, which they've finally decided to join but have failed yet again to point out what sources are "not reliable" and are in fact still denying that it's in said sources I provided, which came from the latest AFD discussion in 2021. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23:} Praxidicae is again accusing me of bad behavior. What to do? Shall I step back? Dove's talk (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week, but not just for the complaint about the user's edit-warring on this article. A fuller description of the user's disruptive behavior may be found in the block log and on the user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Adwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: محرر البوق (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [257] This appears to be a relaively stable version before the edit warring.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [258] This appears to be the oldest relevant edit by the user.
2. most recent at time of report

Numerous intervening edits

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

}}Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle of Adwa#Italian casaulties version at time of making report Opened by this editor.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [259]

Comments:
I am not an involved party. The other involved party is Agilulf2007. I am filing a separate report wrt this user. There is an near continuous exchange of edits/reverts between the two editors save for five by an IP, which directly relate to the same content - see revision history.

Not blocked It seems from the article talk page that discussion has been successful. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Adwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Agilulf2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [260] This appears to be a relaively stable version before the edit warring.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [261] This appears to be the oldest relevant edit by the user.
2. most recent at time of report

Numerous intervening edits

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Battle of Adwa#Italian casaulties version at time of making report No response by this Agilulf2007.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [262]

Comments:
I am not an involved party. The other involved party is محرر البوق. I am filing a separate report wrt this user. There is an near continuous exchange of edits/reverts between the two editors save for five by an IP, which directly relate to the same content - see revision history. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked It seems from the article talk page that discussion has been successful. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Crystal Pepsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:56a:7431:ce00:6de8:2014:8039:b342/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Previous version reverted to: [263]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [268]

~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – /64 blocked 31 hours. The user continued to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Malawi (1964–1966) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HaT59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [269]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [270]
2. [271]
3. [272]
4. [273]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [274]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [275]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [276]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Page: Ryan Kavanaugh
User being reported: Throast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Popoki35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1093179064

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1093216109
2. Special:Diff/1093306481
3. Special:Diff/1091096628

Diff of ANEW posted to users' talk page: Special:Diff/1093434441 and Special:Diff/1093434441

Comments:
I hope I've done this correctly as I've never had to report anyone as my experience in Wikipedia so far, has been pleasurable. I *really* hate to even be involved in this, but I did not initiate an editing war. I did not insult anyone, but asked same questions that were asked of me and stated my personal observations on the page activity clearly and honestly. I initially made typical cleanup type edits to what I've learned is a contentious page. The edits were all in good faith. The two editors immediate accused me of COI among other things.

Popokie35 accused me of trying to "take over" the Ryan Kavanaugh page rather than engage in discussion with me about the page in question and instead asked GOCE editors to "do something" to which I responded clearly and accordingly to explain my participation in the dispute. I responded to all on my talk page, as well as the BLP talk page.

I made some additional relatively minor edits to the content to correct misinformation, placing full and detailed explanation in the edit summary and the talk page The talk page discussion and those edits were reverted. I then reverted them and now I have four editors who won't agree to fact on a page of a BLP, and in the various discussions, I noted several guideline violations. Four editors collectively agreeing to misinformation does not equal consensus nor accuracy. Is that a tactic to control content here? Just ignore facts? I don't believe that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work...

Four editors on BLP page appear to be collaborating to prevent 'any' edits to the page regardless of how accurate — and/or how benign those edits are. Denying the facts written in reliable sources is not unbiased. Reverting good edits multiple times and then complaining about edit warring they've begun is improper. I've presented neatly, clearly facts to support all of my edits, which they've taken turns reverting. It appears that all editing on this page is not unbiased as evidenced by some of the minor, yet accurate changes I've made which have been reverted. I welcome admins input if they are willing to check it out. Please feel welcome to ask any questions as some of the discussions are hard to read/follow without clean formatting. Thank you in advance.The Real Serena Joy^Talk 16:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)}}

• Declined This is a purely retaliatory report. If any action were to be taken, it would be full protection of the article to stop The Real Serena Joy's one against many reverts—which TRSJ would not like, because in their eyes, The Wrong Version would be protected. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  @C.Fred agree - the wrong version would be protected and that would discredit Wikipedia and all the good and honest editors who volunteer their spare time to improve the content here. And yes, it was retaliatory because I am not going to allow overly-zealous editors who misrepresented some facts and got angry when I fixed it push me around. I honestly should have reported them first since they initiated the ridiculous battle. But that wouldn't make it any less ridiculous. Thanks for not locking it down. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 00:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Knowingly submitting retaliatory reports that you know are not going to be effective is disruptive and deeply disrespectful of any patrolling admin's time. Throast (talk | contribs) 08:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)