Page: Laylat al-Raghaib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:

Any constructive, well sourced additions are mass reverted without this person distinguishing bits they actually object to from bits they don't. They might have misunderstood Original research because that is their excuse for repeatedly mass reverting everything. They are simply keeping the version they like. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: They have been reported time and time again for edit warring and pushing their own narrative that is not back by sources see prior reports, Report 1,Report 2, Report 3. They still keep doing it although they have been warned and blocked. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Page: Dodge Journey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2604:2D80:D70C:D300:1BE:9E65:8133:791E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:Dodge Journey#The Image & Successor Details

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

Comments:
IP editor has violated 3RR after being warned and despite acknowledging in an edit summary an awareness of the edit warring policy. IP editor is also edit warring at Dodge Durango. - Aoidh (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours /64 range. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107724466 by Srijanx22 (talk) See talk, don't reinstate until you finally explain yourself. IDL doesn't apply when I'm listing actual policies you are now knowingly breaking. This is more like WP:ILIKEIT, which also applies to this supposed "consensus" in which you ignored all counterpoints and made no amendments"
2. 12:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1107699456 by Accesscrawl (talk) already sourced, read WP:BALANCE and stop ignoring issues in talk"
3. 10:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Pending disputes, the last stable lead stands. Unaddressed WP:BALANCE/NPOV issues already known to the editor in talk remain unacknowledged and unrectified. Debatable re: labels (inline citations for one). This is 3x redundant and the source is already incorporated. And comments are as long as needed ty"
4. 14:40, 28 August 2022 ‎ Sapedder +902‎ restore longstanding neutral opening per WP:BURDEN, move pov to appropriate area. several editors now have had a problem with this recent edit (which is not even what was finally proposed in talk) and no one actually gave "consensus" there. you were clearly made aware of a slew of contradicting existing sources by Chomskywala, but you never actually reconciled your edit with those sources as asked, knowingly contravening NPOV to skew the lead. and yes, mind contentious labels. +add source)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Not militant */"

Comments:

This user is edit warring against consensus and assuming bad faith in edit summaries. This POV pushing based on WP: IDONTLIKEIT is being carried out by this user for years.[15] Srijanx22 (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment – @Srijanx22: Sapedder, though flirting with the limit, does not seem to have broken 3RR. I took a look at the article and, unless I'm misunderstanding the history, it looks like they are restoring the long standing version. Rather than admin action, perhaps this requires dispute resolution?--RegentsPark (comment) 15:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: You are probably correct about dispute resolution, especially since in their haste to revert Sapedder, Srijanx22 has introduced an error a change to the subject's date of birth without adding a new source.[16] —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC) revised 20:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: It is seemingly beyond disruptive to claim that Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwale was not a "militant", given his own biography and his role in Operation Blue Star. In that case, Sapedder is just trying to right great wrongs. Those 3 reverts came under 18 hours so he is clearly edit warring. I added the diff from 2020 when Sapeddar was edit warring to remove the term "militant" since he is engaging in this POV pushing for ages. The consensus version exists against his POV and I don't think dispute resolution will go well with him given his long term POV pushing and intended bludgeoning in this area. Also, take a look at the ANI thread from last year where he was warned for assuming bad faith and edit warring like he is doing now.[17] There was consensus on talk page about 1 month before Sapedder started to edit war by 15 August because he does not like the term "militant" for this subject. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Declined If there is to be any action or resolution it will probably have to be at AN/I, or through some more formal dispute resolution mechanism than the talk page. Reviewing the most recent history of the article, while Sapedder did revert three times within 24 hours, that has happened only once so far and that is itself not a violation of the rule. It seems from both the above comments and the talk page that Sapedder also has some support from parties not regular editors of the page, and also that Srijanx has not come before us with clean hands. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Srijanx22, stop with the constant deflections. Now you've conjured up this new "militant" strawman that no one has even spoken of. You know full well that the main issue is not "militant," it is the two distinct narratives of the relationship between JSB and the "Khalistan movement," in relation to which you are clearly violating WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE to push the view you like at the expense of the other. It is clear to anyone who reads the talk discussion that you refuse to touch that issue.

Since you have just now created this "militant" issue out of thin air, I will put it to rest so you can stop ducking the actual problem. The lead already reads that he "grew to be a leader of Sikh militancy." Did you not read past the first sentence, on which you are fixated to slant the intro? I selected that sentence for inclusion myself! The term in question per LABEL was "terrorist," not "militant." This is a relatively minor point though.

So your strawman is dead on arrival, your attempt to shut down the discussion has been recognized, your desperate block attempt has flopped, and you should finally start addressing the central issue of balancing the two narratives per NPOV, instead of desperately trying to avoid recognizing how your edit violates policy.

RegentsPark and C.Fred, I would be willing to engage in dispute resolution, but if Srijanx22 is only going to revert, create strawmen, file frivolous cases like this, and do everything possible to avoid having to discuss balance (you can see that on the talk page discussion), I don't see it going well. I would recommend that the page be restored to its long-standing version (excepting the birthdate if sources are presented C. Fred) if and locked there pending further talk page discussion first. That may force him to eventually explain his edit within the framework of BALANCE, which is the crux of the matter, instead of trying every maneuver to evade proper discussion and mischaracterize the disagreement. That would be a start, then we can go with AN/I as the next step. Sapedder (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Bola Tinubu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pasa1899 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a, none of the reverts are mine, just reporting the edit war

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:
Pasa1899's 34 edits to this article have all been reverted by three other editors. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Christ, what a mess. Reportee blocked for 3 days. If they continue after the expiry I recommended asking for at the very least an indefinite partial block from Bola Tinubu. I'm also rather tempted to fully protect the page and possibly block AbdulOlu too for not even attempting to discuss the issue (note that they received and removed a 3RR warning here) but will defer to a more experienced administrator on that. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC) "Insufficient reasons for deletion of some parts. Please explain on the talk page first and discuss it there instead of only leaving a short summary."
2. 05:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC) "Please have a discussion on the talk page"
3. 04:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC) "Stop edit-warring by just putting a short note on each edit, and give your explanation first on the talk page. Your oversimplification is not constructive and leaves out a lot of important parts."
4. 19:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC) "Please explain on the talk page, why they are not reliable and specify on what page Kecia Ali stated that she and Spellberg find the attempts in proving the "real age" of Aisha as an exercise in futility"
5. 17:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC) "Removed parts that have been explained previously and parts not found in the source. And also added some details"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Edit warring notice 08:08, 2 September 2022
2. message requesting him/her to self-revert 10:37, 2 September 2022

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC) "/* To Doug Weller */ Reply"
2. 11:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC) "/* To Banlhge453 */ Reply NPOV, not neutrality"
3. 10:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC) on User talk:Androvie "/* September 2022 */ Please could you self-revert"

Comments:

Note the request on editor's talk page to self-revert which was ignored although the editor continued to edit. Editor was warned but not by me. Doug Weller talk 12:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Doug, it looks to me like they didn't "ignore" the request to self-revert, but by the time they responded someone else had already reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Androvie placed an edit warring notice at 05:45, 2 September 2022 on User talk:Banlhge453 (which was the right thing to do in the circumstances). This proves that he/she understands the concept of edit warring, and knows that it can lead to blocking.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Toddy1@Bbb23 ok, I'll AGF and withdraw this. Androvie asked me why I didn't report Banlhge453 but my count was 3 reverts. Doug Weller talk 13:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Although I don't know, they had half an hour and were editing during that period. I think I'll leave this up to someone else, not withdrawing. Androvie has now been told to report Banlhge453. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to post diffs, but here's the sequence: Toddy1 asked Androvie to self-revert at 10:37. Iskander reverted at 11:17. Androvie did not edit between 10:32 and 12:09.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 interesting as I see different times in the history both of the article and editor. But if we can be sure he didn’t see the request to revert…. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:Doug Weller Well, we can't be sure they didn't see it. All I can say is that they didn't edit during the period Toddy1 posted the request and Iskander reverted. What times do you see?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.

 11:32, September 2, 2022‎ Androvie talk contribs block‎  [inspect diff] 61,193 bytes +2,822‎  Insufficient reasons for deletion of some parts.

Post to his talk page asking to self-revert

• curprev  11:37, September 2, 2022‎ Toddy1 talk contribs block‎  [inspect diff] 4,900 bytes +366‎  →‎September 2022: Please could you self-revert undothank
• And Androvie's edits
  • 13:09, September 2, 2022 diff hist  [inspect diff] +747‎  Talk:Aisha ‎ →‎Rejection of LivingIslam as a source: Reply Tags: Reply Visual
  • 11:32, September 2, 2022 diff hist  [inspect diff] +2,822‎  Aisha ‎ Insufficient reasons for deletion of some parts. Please explain on the talk page first and discuss it there instead of only leaving a short summary. Tag: Reverted
• But I think this is about time zones being different. I agree, we can't tell why they didn't post. Sorry about the bullet points, I'm still finding some of the software changes puzzling. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• You can ask editors who are smarter than I about this, but my Preferences/Appearance says to use UTC for "Time zone". Despite the fact that it is not my time zone, it's much easier to sort things like this out. I set it that way a long time ago when I was having trouble using my local time.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Androvie is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at Aisha unless they have first obtained a consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Aisha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Banlhge453 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27] and [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29] 19:01, 1 September 2022
2. [30] 03:35, 2 September 2022
3. [31] 05:03, 2 September 2022
4. [32] 06:52, 2 September 2022

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34] on the summary, I told him again and again to solve this on the talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [35]

Comments:I have asked him again and again to join the discussion on the talk page first before reverting and making edits, but he ignored my request and kept reverting and only leaving short summaries.

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I know in light of the above this might seem like a retaliatory report, but the rule was violated, and the user's intransigence over the issue on the talk page does not help them. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Georgia Guidestones#The book and also there does appear to be some discussion about this at User talk:Abotnick#WP:BLOGS

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

Comments:
I did make one revert and warned the editor, but there appear to be several editors who have raised concerns about the content being inserted by the editor and have reverted them. - Aoidh (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

But after this was posted and they were notified of it and reponses have been given on the talk page, they have continued edit-warring with a fifth revert. - Aoidh (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Was just coming here to do this, total of 6 times the editor has added the information, including 5 reverts, in 3 hours. This is poorly sourced content trying to link the Guidestones to a new world order conspiracy, which is already a known conspiracy theory regarding them, using blogs and other unreliable sources, as well as what appears to the their own research as well. I did just violate 3RR myself, but I made it clear why in my edit summary. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually don't think you have violated 3 reverts; unless I'm missing one you've made three reverts[44][45][46] not four, though it would be a good idea to step back from the reverts for a bit; there's certainly enough eyes on the article and while I agree that there are serious problems with the content being inserted, it's not worth getting blocked over. - Aoidh (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I'm just at 3, for some reason I though it was more. Either way, I think they've stopped for now, and even if not, I 100% agree it's not worth getting blocked over, it won't be an issue soon anyway, and the article can be reverted later. Even though, with that last one, given the WP:IDHT and the headline they used for the section, I would hope most admins would understand. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]
5. [52]
6. [53] 13:19 3rd Sep
7. [54] 13:23 3rd Sep
8. [55] 21:02 3rd Sep
9. [56] 22:46 3rd Sep

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Radio#Edit warring

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [58]

Comments:

Repeated removal of much of the article material despite a consensus on the article talk page that the material should stay. Others are trying to add references, but Nightscream keeps reverting the material out before they can be added often with a personal attack. Removing uncited material is not an exception to the three revert rule.

Note: that the last 'four' (4) reverts are within 24 hours (actually within ten hours)' 86.181.0.154 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Two of those edits are consecutive, so 3RR has not been technically breached. However, this issue is being discussed at WP:ANI, so I am closing this report. Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Herschel Walker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Glenstorm85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1108469867 by Praxidicae (talk)"
2. 15:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC) "In accordance with the Wikipedia editorial board's guidance on quotations and neutrality for BLP entries -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations_and_neutrality -- I removed quotations that cast a political bias over the entry and which consisted of confusing gaffes rather than clear policy positions. I also removed two sections which did not contain any sourced/supported policy positions."
3. 15:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC) "See the Wikipedia editorial board's guidance on quotations and neutrality. This article has been edited by an author with a political agenda in violation of Wikipedia's guidance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations_and_neutrality"
4. 04:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC) "Certain content authored in the "Political Positions" section flagrantly ignored Wikipedia's guidance for the inclusion of quotations from a position of neutrality. For reference, please read the Wikipedia guidance for "Quotations and Neutrality" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations_and_neutrality -- I followed that articles guidance restated the content as fact, removing the quotes, and removed unverified content and content that didn't fit the section topic."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

despite warnings and multiple discussions with multiple editors on their talk pages as well as WP:BLPN, this user refuses to engage in discussion and instead insists on removing well sourced content (for which consensus was previously established on the talk page.) PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Already blocked 331dot (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Principality of Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Titus Gold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [66]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Narasingha Deva I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Uplkj (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 06:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 06:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 06:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Hey you just don't try to delete my words, Read the books of historian R. J.Majumdar or Jadunath Sarkar. You continuously are deleting my words, first prove who were the semi independent Hindu rulers Overrun by odia sources. You first add otherwise accept it was possible."
   2. 06:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Even you have no proper sources In the book of historian Jadunath Sarkar, it was written Lakhankuti was won by Narashinga Dev, not entirely Gaur and Rarh"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 04:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Why are you deleting my edits? Go and read the history book of jadunath Sarkar, I just added possibly, because they don't mention who were the semi independent Hindu rulers, they didn't add references, yet you have no problem?"
   2. 04:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Why are they writing gaur and rarh, gaur and mean only Lakhankuti and Contai? There are many districts"
   3. 04:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Either mention how many parts of rarh and gauda or don't delete my edits"
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 03:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 03:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "First you add sources how many parts of gauda and rarh won by Narshinga, Contai and Lakhankuti don't stand for the entire area. Fake history is written by all."
   2. 03:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Who were the semi independent Hindu rulers of Southern part of West Bengal, write some names, other wise delete the line"
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 03:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 03:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Why people tried to write fake history of Bengal, Did Mallabhum kingdom of Bengal region, make alliance with Eastern Ganga? And who are semi independent Hindu rulers ? Write some names, King Narshinga defeated Muslim armies but this doesn't mean he conquered entire Gauda and Rarh."
   2. 03:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Why fake history is written about Bengal, who were semi independent Hindu rulers? Write some names, they tried to insult Bengal kings"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Narasingha Deva I."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I would've loved resolving the situation on the talk page, but they refused to do so. Anyways, this user decided to add "possibly" on multiple places in the article. I reverted their changes a few times, but they kept adding "possibly" back and writing long edit summaries about how stuff in the article is "fake". The only time they've interacted with me outside of the article was when they had a similar rant about how things are "fake" on my talk page. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 07:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: The Postal Dude (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volkan1881 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1108613598 (partially reverts Special:Diff/993238533)
2. Special:Diff/1108619299
3. Special:Diff/1108661001
4. Special:Diff/1108684385

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1108685648

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Volkan1881#The Postal Dude, User talk:Adakiko/Archive 3#why did you delete my postal dude edit?

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1108687569

Comments:
User is repeatedly recreating an article redirected at AfD with no sources at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

They responded to being notified of this thread with profanity * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Previously blocked for EW. Adakiko (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: O. J. Howard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2603:6080:5F01:4CB9:10FF:5474:792E:8E30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 23:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Stop changing the star"
3. 22:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Stop changing the Star it does not belong there"
4. 20:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Star does not belong there stop putting it there"
5. 19:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 02:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
7. 23:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC) ""
8. 14:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on O.J. Howard."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Offseason member only */ new section"

Comments:

Keeps trying to remove an asterisk for "offseason only" in the infobox of the player, despite the player clearly only being on the team in question during the offseason. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 2600:1700:7930:6100:B4BC:331A:2DBC:3713 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
   2. 21:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC) to 06:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 06:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
   2. 06:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
   3. 06:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
5. 05:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
6. 05:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""
7. 02:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Robert McQueen High School."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps unlinking the list of alumni and adding NN MB 13:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for regular vandalism EvergreenFir (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Boston Children's Hospital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 204.15.147.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Incomplete, biased, and politically charged edit. Make reviews to be less incendiary in nature."
2. 01:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Incomplete and biased information. Incendiary and politically inclined language."
3. 00:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Libs of Tiktok provided video evidence of interaction with three employees confirming the procedure was realized on minors. This article is highly biased and does not include pertinent information."
4. 00:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Libs of Tiktok controversy was highly biased. The writer was not unbiased and failed to provide information that is pertinent to this developing story such as the fact that the website of Boston Children’s Hospital was edited after they faced backlash."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[67] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:204.15.147.136&oldid=1108925986#c-PohranicniStraze-20220907011400-September_2022]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP passed 3RR and continues to blank politically charged article for POV reasons. Replies "objective criticism" on talk. Not sure if this should be AIV or EWN. But IP did not follow BRD and continues to revert 4x. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jirka.h23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]
6. [74]
7. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [78]

Comments:

This user has been adding and readding this section several times now, three times four in the last twenty-four hours plus several more prior to that. I think this counts as longer term edit warring.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I have returned it on 27 August, this paragraph was here until 11 August, when you deleted it, so it was just 16 days, and there was a mention of it about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article). As said Slatersteven, the onus should be on those wishing to remove it to get consensus, and I agree on that. Also five people at the talk page is against its removal. Do not force your edit (removal of the sourced content), the page returns to stable version, find first consensus for removal of the paragraph. Thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

1) I did not delete it; 2) That's all irrelevant. You're still edit warring.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you deleted the paragraph from the page on 11 August 2022.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Diff? You won't find one because these are my edits on that page: [79].--Ermenrich (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be it [[80]]. Note, not yours. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Being right is not a justification for edit warring (as I told you). Also you are wp:bludgeoning the talk page. 14:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

Ok sorry it was ErnestKrause, I was wrong if you both start with "E" :-) Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that he should first find a consensus to remove the long-standing paragraph. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an issue for a different notice board. This is about your edit warring - which is obvious and proven.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:17, August 30, 2022
2. 00:03, August 31, 2022
3. 12:28, August 31, 2022
4. 12:33, August 31, 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Do not continue edit warring"

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [82]

Comments:

This issue began when ChicagoWikiEditor made this edit two weeks prior to the edit warring, with no edit summary whatsoever to explain why content that had been in the article since the day the article was created 10 years ago was being removed. I was blocked for my edit warring on August 31 and was unable to file this report until now. Shortly after I was blocked, Chicago WikiEditor made this edit, with the edit summary, "Enjoy your block." Stoarm (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Stale. Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Confederation Liberty and Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC) "No sources with proof. Confederation got 5-10% political support, because the are not populism. Confederation is pro-science party"
2. 23:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109093477 by LilianaUwU (talk)"
3. 22:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109072759 by Vacant0 (talk) No sources with proof. Confederation got 5-10% political support, because the are not populism. Confederation is pro-science party. Read the sources and stop revert."
4. 17:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109055890 by PopoDameron (talk) "the sources directly say it's true" - These sources have provided no evidence of this. It is not enough to "say". It still has to be proved. If I create a page where I write that you are a pedophile - it does not mean that you are a pedophile. I have yet to prove it. But in your opinion, you are a pedophile - because that's what the source says. Bring a new source that shows proof."
5. 17:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC) "No sources with proof. Confederation got 5-10% political support, because the are not populism. Confederation is pro-science party."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Confederation Liberty and Independence."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Has removed something that was sourced from the linked article while writing less than flattering edit summaries. Also, this might be a case of WP:NONAZIS. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 01:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

"Has removed something that was sourced from the linked article while writing less than flattering edit summaries. Also, this might be a case of WP:NONAZIS"

Stop slandering me, lie. Kutybap (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You've been told to go to the talk page to discuss the changes, yet you decided to keep edit warring. How is that slanderous? Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 02:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Kutybap's edit-warring has continued since LilianaUwU wrote this report. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would want to note that blocked user Damianbolek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also repeatedly removed "right-wing populism" from the infobox and also claimed that "there is no proof that the party is populist". Vacant0 (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Two separate 3RR vios in as many days. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Shōnen manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SG1994! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]
5. [88]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [91]

Comments: I was previously involved in an edit dispute with this user at shojo manga (discussion on my talk page here) over the addition of uncited info, which I did not escalate here largely because I was unsure of the process for doing so. (That dispute also involved them removing cited information from "Adolescence" because it contradicted their POV). Quick glance down their talk page shows the editor has a history of this kind of brute force, "because I said so"-style editing despite multiple warnings about the importance of providing reliable sources. Morgan695 (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Morgan695: How do you justify your violation of 3RR?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: WP:CITE, as User:SG1994! has revised the relevant copy of the article without actually changing the corresponding in-article citation; as it currently stands with SG1994's edit in place, the relevant passage of the article is not actually supported by the McCarthy citation provided. (Though even if the in-text citation was changed, SG1994 has failed to provide any reliable source substantiating their claim beyond some blogs and their own personal POV on the matter.) In any case, I've disengaged from editing the page until this report is concluded. If I can be so frank, I did not feel inclined to engage this editor with the best of faith given their record of being banned for the exact type of unconstructive editing they're demonstrating here, as well as my own previous attempt to build consensus with the editor being wholly unproductive. Morgan695 (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Morgan695: You should read WP:3RRNO. WP:CITE is not an exemption from edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: So what is the resolution here? I've started an RfC on the article talk page, where SG1994! is currently just making bizarre, easily disproven statements about what is plainly written in sources that contradict their position. How am I supposed to engage this person in good faith? Morgan695 (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And now openly mocking a third party editor. Morgan695 (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Flavan-3-ol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zefr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[92]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1108905952
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flavan-3-ol&oldid=1108907385

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zefr

Comments:

This is an ongoing problem - hence a report after only two reversions. Editor Zefr reverts edits that suggest that flavan-3-ols might have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease risk. There is a considerable amount of evidence - compliant to WP:MEDRS - but this is ignored and statements are always revised to be as negative as possible. I have suggested that this should be discussed on the talk page before reverting - but that request was ignored.

Unfortunately, it appears that there is a personal problem and Zefr believes that I push a NPOV because of a perceived bias. This has been discussed here [[93]]. The statement I have added has been discussed extensively on the talk page [[94]] and in the context of a 3rd opinion request regarding the inclusion of a larger study. There is clear consensus that beneficial effects have been observed.Ggux (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't point to any consensus for your position since EdJohnston's warning in mid-May. I'm inclined to block both of you for continuing the content dispute in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This might have been my mistake, but I believed that the statement I added did not change the meaning but rather clarified it. The original text stated: Research has shown that flavan-3-ols may affect vascular function, blood pressure, and blood lipids, with only minor effects demonstrated, as of 2019. I have added a statement from a source that was cited previously to indicate the incremental nature of the research and put it into perspective: Accumulating evidence suggests that flavan-3-ol consumption can be beneficial for cardiovascular and metabolic health.

But I appreciate that while this was done in good intentions, I should have added this to the talk page first.Ggux (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

First, that doesn't look like a clarification but a significant change. Second, you edit-warred over it, which is precisely what you were warned would result in a block. Perhaps I should p-block both of you from the article; much as I dislike p-blocks, this seems like a good candidate for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I have reconsidered this and ask you for a permanent block for me - assuming this is possible. When an experienced editor such as @Zefr has made up their mind, it is impossible to change and simply leads to frustration. For whatever reason, @Zefr believes that neither flavan-3-ols nor polyphenols have any impact on health. While this contradicts the scientific consensus, including reviews and the favourite source of this editor, it is impossible to include it in any reasonable way in a text. Discussions are derailed by making preposterous claims and edits are made without discussion. In summary: @Zefr wins and I would like to leave. Ggux (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to wait and see what Zefr has to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Irrespective of that - please do block me. It will make things easier and Zefr will be able to keep the polyphenol and nutrition pages free from any claims that might link them to health.Ggux (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said - I've given up. I'm sure @Zefr is proud. And perhaps you could consider how to deal with bullies. Good bye.

[[95]]

Ggux (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

There are no reputable MEDRS reviews or medical organizations, no significant scientific agreement generally, no regulatory agencies (with two minor EU exceptions), and no Wikipedia editor consensus to state that any polyphenol has sufficient evidence of providing anti-disease effects or normal roles in physiology. Yet, since May 2022, Ggux has been on a campaign to paint several polyphenol articles with a halo of health effects. In this section, Ggux did collaborate for stating facts without insistence on using primary research to advocate for unproven health claims. 

Ggux has declared COI as an employed academic scientist with a vested interest in promoting that institution's research program, and admits (user page history) to being "terribly biased". Now, confronted with resistance against overselling vague primary research as encyclopedic conclusions, Ggux wishes to withdraw from editing polyphenol articles. That's an easy self-regulated action: if truly wishing to be a constructive Wikipedia volunteer, Ggux could just edit other topics.

By the persistence of Ggux editing mainly polyphenol articles and talk pages in favorable terms of health and nutrition (more than 95% of user's total edits), the intent is revealed for WP:SPA which states: "while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed."

Accordingly, a WP:TBAN from editing polyphenol articles due to advocacy and for failure to uphold MEDRS-based neutrality, and encouragement to be a more collegial, diversified editor are in order. Zefr (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at this, Zefr did not break the three-revert rule so they have not broken any policy. I believe Ggux has quit Wikipedia and scrambled their password, they also wrote on their Wikipedia page they have been bullied. Ggux is obviously an academic in the field of research who was using Wikipedia to promote health effects of polyphenols. It is disappointing they have left because if they were a bit more patient and engaged with talk-pages more and requested input from other editors they may have stayed around but I agree with Zefr that some of their editing was problematic by not upholding MEDRS-based neutrality. This user was promoting the COMOS trial [96] but the results do not look statistically significant. Similar to Ggux I do believe that there are health effects from polyphenols but I differ in admitting that to due to difficulties with interpreting results and the limited trials that have been published at this stage the evidence is suggestive, not conclusive. I think their are many difficulties with this topic for researchers to sort out before any consensus is reached. It's true that there is no scientific agreement on this topic right now. I think we need a lot more years research. In a decade it may be more clear. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked per above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: General Roman Calendar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC) "Stop deleting this. It's not helpful, as others have said."
2. 00:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC) "Undo deletion."
3. 00:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC) "Undo deletion."
4. 00:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC) "Undo deletion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 03:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC) "→‎Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion: add explicit warning about 3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User was given edit-warring and 3RR warnings; not sure how to add those when filing report via Twinkle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgsu98 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 Sep 2022 (UTC)

• Was the user even given a warning about 3RR? —C.Fred (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: In one of my third reverts, I put this in the summary of my revert of the user. I am not sure if it counts as a formal warning. Veverve (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: No, it doesn't. 3RR warnings should be given at the user's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours by DatGuy Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to override you C.Fred, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pisarz12345: violation of WP:BURDEN, says I am "blind", answers the same one-liner for my reasoning. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@DatGuy: You did a deeper dive into the big picture than I did. No feelings hurt here over the action you took; I endorse the block. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: People Power Party (South Korea) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeff6045 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) check the history of the article and the talk session. The PPP's political position has long been "right-wing." Jeff6045 repeats devastating edits, insisting that PPP is "centre-right." So I opened Talk, and in Talk, everyone admitted that PPP is right wing, even more right than LDP. Jeff6045 did not admit his fault and even committed false reports. Disciplinary action is needed to stop the user's editorial war. Mureungdowon (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: People Power Party (South Korea) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mureungdowon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is deleting content of People Power Party (South Korea) with out making any consensus at talk page. I think this user is trying to engage an edit war.Jeff6045 (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's not lie. It's Jeff6045, not me, that's causing the editorial war now. The administrator wants you to check the history of the article, not "center-right," but "right-wing" is a long-standing agreement between users. Plus Jeff6045 is ignoring Talk. All editors except Jeff6045 acknowledged that PPP is a "right-wing."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mureungdowon (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People_Power_Party_(South_Korea)#Centre-right????

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_Power_Party_(South_Korea)&action=history&offset=&limit=500

I'd like to ask the manager Please also check out the People Power Party's history sessions over the last two months. Jeff6045 insists on destructive editing, and I've only returned these destructive edits to their former state.--Mureungdowon (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• You're really both continuing the edit war as I'm quite literally typing this. Get a grip. Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Rick and Morty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Stuv3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109208090 by FormalDude (talk)"
2. 14:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC) "the show is American and broadcast solely by adult swim, it is on international channels like every other show in the world"
3. 13:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 10:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC) "irrelavant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rick and Morty."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

@FormalDude: This is a dispute that needs addressed at the article's talk page. I would prefer that you two sort it out there, rather than a sanction have to be applied affecting both of you for your edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Affecting both of us? I haven't violated 3RR, they have. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: User:Stuv3 and User:FormalDude are both warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page for their change. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Page: Average human height by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: LJstats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First and foremost, I am party to this conflict myself, and am not cultivating myself as being on the side the angels. I may have overstepped 3RR at some point; I really haven't checked. I haven't checked whether LJstats is over 3RR either but for the purpose of this complaint against the editor, it really does not matter. We are involved in a bitter stand-off on the talk page. To date, none of us has received guidance on which version ought to be on display while we discuss: LJStats' which includes certain material, or mine which dispenses with that material. So it has been back and forth. Nearly 24 hours ago, I was warned by an administrator about edit-warring, and so was the other party. I had been the last to revert at that stage, and after brief consideration, I self-reverted under protest. A second editor reverted me as is his choice (and I have no personal connection to this individual although we have cooperated constructively and spoken in the past). Following LJstats' warning, I now consider this edit downright unacceptable, provocative and cavalier in its summary (Hurray! We're winning 4:2 and that gives me the right to do this!). iVotes were never about who gets a higher count but the arguments posited, at least in the eyes of a closing admin not to have previously been involved. If this editor is hanging on long enough to circumvent 3RR then that would be a classic example of WP:GAME. I rarely report editors and aspire not to be reported myself. Apologies if any of my grievance does not meet criteria, but if it doesn't, I'd appreciate some directions. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

PS. Out of some frustration I reverted again prior to the above report, and then recanted. I hope this does not form a revision count for violations. I apologise if it does. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

User:LJstats continued to revert at 07:30 on Sept 10 after being warned to stop warring by User:Ohnoitsjamie at 21:37 on Sept 9. Per his comment above, Coldtrack was at least *trying* to self-revert after getting the same warning. It looks to me that LJstats is the closest to deserving a block out of all the combatants. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Page protected Salvio 19:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Juan Sebastián Elcano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.125.64.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.125.64.219

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Juan_Sebasti%C3%A1n_Elcano#Whether_Elcano_was_Basque_or_not, and many other discussions.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.125.64.219

Comments:
This anonymous IP is trying to pursue a deletion of a fact that is sustained by sources. References are given, but they doesn't stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theklan (talk • contribs) 10:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

This page has problems back to some years ago with some users that monopolize it with their own nationalistic POV and they don't care about what people say in the talk page. It shouldn't be blocked for edit warring just because this user tries to impose his POV together with other 2-3 users. Please read carefully the proofs and the text I'll post below. Oh, and none of them (especially Theklan, who made this report) never cared to talk anything in the talk page. They just stick to revert or to add another source that is not proving their point but a similar one.

Some of the historical sources say Elcano was Biscayne, which is not the same as being from the "Basque Nationality" (a nationality that has never existed, btw) and looking at the National Geographic page you mentioned, yes indeed they say he was Basque born in the Basque Country, but inside of Spain, they talk about his return to Spain, I will quote National Geographic "Elcano did not suffer from a lack of fame in his country on his return. Europe’s most powerful man, Charles V, the king of Spain and Holy Roman emperor, duly praised and rewarded the captain who had so heroically completed the voyage." they even claim how the expedition was Spanish (of course including people from all parts of Spain, such as Basques or Andalosians, as well as from other nationalities, such as Portuguese) as you can see no one denies he was Spanish, because he was born Castilian and he died Spanish.

Yes, he was also Basque, like an American can be a Californian or like a French can be Corsican or a Italian can be Sardinian. That doesn't remove the fact he was Spanish, which is the desire of the 3 nationalistic Basque users that keep monopolizing that page for some years... I just encourage you to check the Basque Wikipedia to see how there is no mention on the real place he was born (they say it was born in "Euskal Herria" which was a concept that was firstly mentioned by Basque Nationalists in the 19th century) no mention in the lead nor in an important place to the Spanish Empire and even less to Castile, even if he was born Castilian inside the Kingdom of Castile.

I am okay with keeping he was Basque as well in the lead. I think the Nationality tag in the infobox should be deleted, as proposed 2 years ago by other users. Since this is controversial. Like in the Carles Puigdemont given example in the long RfC he had (you can see it in Elcano's talk page) and Puigdemont denies he is Spanish, while there is no historical claim Elcano has ever deniend being Spanish or Castilian since he was Castilian/Spanish, we can say he was also Basque as the sources say Biscayne (which doesn't automatically remove the fact he can also be Spanish/Castilian) so I think it's better to keep it this way. And let's not forget Elcano lost his life while trying to claim a Moluccan island for the Spanish Empire. He gave his life for Spain. That doesn't make him less Basque, but neither doesn't remove the fact he died Spanish and also that he was born in the Crown of Castile. In fact, Elcano has been treated as a Spanish National Hero for centuries and unless in the Basque and the English Wikipedia, no other Wiki denies he was Spanish but only Basque... why is someone letting this happen? He even lost his life in an expedition for the Spanish Empire, trying to gather another island for the Empire.

In addition, the only Wikis that say he was only Basque are the Basque language Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia, which has been modified by the same users that edit the Basque Wiki, in all of the other Wikis no one tries to change the history of Elcano's expeditions or to alter his biography by removing the nationality/citizenship he acquired from the place he was born in and when he died, it's curious how a non-Spanish person (according to Theklan and 2-3 other Basque nationalists editing this Wiki) died giving his life for the Spanish Empire in an expedition he wanted to complete. Kinda contradictory, isn't it?

Here is the National Geographic official source for Elcano, where you can find most of what I've wrote above: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/history-magazine/article/this-man-was-actually-first-to-sail-around-the-world

--84.125.64.26 (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to add the constant tryouts from 2019-2020 to reach a consensus in the talk page of Juan Sebastián Elcano (including a Wiki's admin opinion there) and no one has even cared about that, including this user (Theklan) or others that constantly edit the page. They just stick to revert the page to what they like. This "dominance" of the page has been already mentioned even before 3 years ago, I just want to keep Wikipedia neutral and to reference to what the added sources say, not to missinterpret on purpose the content of these sources. No one has ever provided in 3 years a single reliable source saying he has a "Basque Nationality" or denying his Castilian/Spanish citizenship, to back up such edits, the users I mention such as Theklan, seek for a source where it mentions he was Basque (which is an ethnicity) and that's his reason to revert, while no source says what he exactly claims. Like I said before, only the Basque and the English Wikis have that written in Elcano's page... and the English Wiki has been modified by the same users as in the Basque Wiki. --84.125.64.26 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

We are not discussing about citizenship (which is a modern concept) but about nationality. But here the discussion is about edit warring, not about the article. Also, note that this IP has only contributions in this article (WP:SPA) and that the accusations are a clear case of breach of WP:AFG. Thanks Lectonar for protecting the page. - Theklan (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theklan: When you made this report you didn't even envolve in the talk page unless at the end to be able to fill it. You perfectly know this page has had issues by dozens if not hundreds of different users that disagreed with the edits of you and the other 2 users, which "casually" all of you 3 are well known Basque Nationalists that edit the Basque Wiki and you don't hesitate to revert/delete anything without envolving in the talk page to resolve the disputed content. Most users didn't do a further step but I did, btw my account is not a SPA since I've edited several articles and no one confuses citizenship with nationality here.

The fact you barely wrote something on the talk page (and not in the paragraph where it belongs as no one is denying Elcano wasn't Basque, but not from the invented Basque Nationality you claim) shows how much you want to resolve this dispute.

I also thank for the protection of the page and I really hope this user won't act like this again because I'll be the one filling a report next time. It's time to end the dominance you've had in that page together with the other mentioned users, as mentioned in the talk page by several users in 2017 , 2019 or 2020 (when you never tried to reach any consesus other than deleting or reverting almost everything added by everyone else, to impose your nationalistic POV) I hope this will help that poor article which is nothing else than a Verbatim copy of the Basque Wiki version, that says Elcano was just Basque and born in "Euskal Herria" (a Basque nationalist term that was firstly mentioned in the 19th century) they also tried to copy this to the English Wikipedia... but luckily administrators here are not biased as in the Basque Wikipedia. --84.125.64.26 (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Theklan (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• The page has been fully protected for one week by Lectonar.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Lectonar and @Bbb23. I'm seing a bitter tone, with personal attacks and not assuming good faith. I'll try to mention it in the talk page. Could it be possible to revert to the last edition before the edit warring started, please? Theklan (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theklan: Now this user says I'm doing personal attacks just because I'm saying the truth regarding his edits in that page and because he didn't involve himself in the talk page just after making this report?? I have never said anything bad nor offensive. Where are the personal attacks?

@Lectonar: and @Bbb23: Please don't do what he wants to, he wants to return again to his non-consensuated and non-talked edits that differ from what the sources say, right now there is a "status quo" (since he wants to shoehorn Elcano's "Basquism" the page actually mentions his Basque ethnicity based off the sources linked in the page) like I said before, please click on any major Wiki language for this article and then the Basque one and you'll see the English wikipage is basically a verbatim copy of the Basque Wiki.

Right now, I'm trying to reach a point in the talk page (given the fact he and the other 2 active users constantly editing this page deliberately ignored the 2019-2020 stable tryouts) it seems he just wants to see his own edition and to keep alternative facts about Juan Sebastián Elcano, like saying he has a Basque Nationality (something that doesn't even exist, Basque is an ethnicity) and removing any claim related to Castile / Spain while in fact Elcano was received by the Spanish King Charles I of Spain (Charles V Holy Emperor) and died for the Spanish Empire doing a Spanish conquest tryout and he is considered a Spanish Hero since the 16th century. And all of this is well sourced in the page. He just wants to delete history just as it happens only in the Basque Wiki, I'm even assuming good faith and I say let's keep the Basque Ethnicity but what this user wants is to completely unrelate Elcano to Spain which is pointless as he played a major role in the Spanish History. It's like deleting George Washington is American in his wiki page claiming he was actually British because his ethnicity is British. --84.125.64.26 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note – Further discussion of the issue belongs at Talk:Juan Sebastián Elcano, not here! Favonian (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Favonian: Thanks! That's where we will solve this. I would like to add something else from my part (the last one in this page) so you can know. The stable version of this page was broken less than 2 weeks ago by a WP:SPA that made 17 edits in a row for the first and last time in this article and in Wikipedia in overall. It's "curious" that no user "patrolling" the page didn't take any action over these edits.

• Mpub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Here you have the last stable version before this SPA account done the 17 edits in a row
• Here you have the edit after the last edit of this SPA account

I will continue in the talk page you told us to, I wanted to leave this written here as well, so you can know who broke the consensuated lead. Thank you! --84.125.64.26 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no thing as "consensuated lead" or "stable version". This article was in barebones when I started a really big contribution. On the other hand, you are doing Wikipedia:Single-purpose account clearly, so don't try to blame others for that. Also, stop personal attacks, please. Theklan (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Theklan: It's really curious since you still repeat the mantra of personal attacks when I didn't break none of WP:NPA rules, while at the same time you are breaking it right now calling me a WP:SPA while I have engaged in several articles.

"Don't call others" why are you deliberately ignoring the account I've posted above whose all Wiki edits were in this article in a 2-hour span and "curiously" you didn't engage in none of his edits (as they are convenient for your POV) while you call me a SPA account?? You fastly delete/undo most of the other edits others editors have done in that page regarding the lead, but not for that SPA account, mmm... curious isn't it???

Imagine that SPA account would "surprisingly" return today or in the upcoming days? I'll remember it, maybe we have to ask for some proper investigations if that happens, it's funny to see how picky and leniant you are depending on which account does the edits, even if it's an account registered in August 2022 that made 17 Wiki edits whose 17 are all in the same page (Elcano wiki page during the same August day) but that's not a SPA account in your books whilst I am, right? 84.125.64.26 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, please. Don't canvas me. No personal attacks. Assume good faith. Theklan (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add that the I mentioned the account 84.125.64.219, but here we are having answers by 84.125.64.26. I assume that both are the same, and then the edit warring is even more obvious. I would like to know if there will be any other move now we know that multiple IPs were used for the same purpose. Best. Theklan (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Dagmar Schipanski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 107.115.243.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109657811 by 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk)"
2. 03:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109657077 by Scorpions13256 (talk)"
3. 03:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109656680 by Materialscientist (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC) on User talk:107.115.243.49 "/* September 2022 */ 4"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – 31 hours by User:CambridgeBayWeather for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: William, Prince of Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dbainsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]
5. [105]
6. [106]
7. [107]
8. [108]
9. [109]
10. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:William, Prince of Wales#The Prince of Wales

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [112]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Herod the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 99.59.168.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Changed “most” to “some.” It would be impossible to know the majority opinion of all Herod historians."
2. 12:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Fixed insinuation."
3. 11:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Fixed text."
4. 11:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "By making it accurate."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Herod the Great."
2. 12:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 99.59.168.90."
3. 12:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Restored revision 1110070874 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
4. 12:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Herod the Great."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "edit war"

Comments:

Breaching WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24h Favonian (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Finland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asdasd123qwerty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [119]

Editor inserting that English is an official language in Finland, which is factually incorrect as can be seen here. When I reverted their edit adding this, they called it ″vandalism″ and insisted on it being added as an official language absurdly citing the Constitution of the United States. I stopped reverting once I reached three reverts in order to not break the 3RR, but given their attitude I am convinced they would continue edit warring even if I hadn't. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have only reverted three times which is the maximum amount allowed. Therefore I cannot be blocked. The Constitution of the United States doesn't mention an official language and there is still English (de facto) in the infobox. So even if the Finnish constitution doesn't mention English, I can still add it as de facto because the vast majority of the population speaks it and almost all government services are available in it. Asdasd123qwerty 😸 (Need to talk?) 12:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at the links you were sent to WP:EW, which states you can still participate in edit warring without breaking the 3RR, which you absolutely did by instead of following WP:BRD making false accusations of vandalism and trying to force your edits through. Not to mention, you're wrong even by your own logic since United States correctly has no official languages in its infobox. TylerBurden (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, when you find yourself making arguments such as "I only reverted three times so you can't block me," you are probably engaged in an edit war rather than an attempt to seek consensus. Please engage on the Talk page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Template:Wests Tigers current squad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therlinsideman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [120]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [121]
2. [122]
3. [123]
4. [124]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [126]

Comments:

User:Therlinsideman has been directed to MOS:FLAG that (I believe) shows flag icons should not be used in this circumstance. He has then reverted without gaining consensus for inclusion after he was made aware the change was contentious. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rugby_league#Flags_in_NRL_squad_templates shows consensus for not including the flags.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)}}

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Minhle20002013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "consensus has been gained in the talk page, Wikipedia's job is to summarize what the reliable sources say. If multiple reliable sources are reporting something, we cannot just ignore it because we disagree with what the reporting is. If sources conflict with each other or there is concern that the sources got the answer wrong, we can simply attribute the statements (e.g., Multiple sources have reported that...). It doesn't matter if in your view they are just speculation"
2. 20:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Edit through concensus in the talk page of such changes"
3. 20:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Sources from CNN, ManchesterEveningNews... clearly stated the style of 'His Royal Highness, Prince Archie of Sussex'. Use the talk page to gain concensus to your proposal to make changes to a version that has already been agreed upon"
4. 18:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Sources from CNN, Manchestereveningnews... clearly stated the style of 'His Royal Highness, Prince Archie of Sussex' regardless of whether he chooses to use the style he legally holds. CBS, ABC, Theguardian further confirms that Archie indeed became a Prince and legally holds the style Royal Highness in accordance with the 1917 Letters Patent. It's natural that he be styled that way as he is a Prince from Sussex. Stop ignoring reliable sources you don't like and version that has been agreed upon"
5. 15:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Read the sources, they are there for a reason, they called Archie - His Royal Highness, Prince Archie of Sussex"
6. 06:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC) "update with reliable sources from CNN, Daily Mail, ABC, CBS, News..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

and edit warring on Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor for the same content - which is currently being discussed on the talk page(s) PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Has attempted to discuss with the other editor to reach a consensus in both talk pages but the other editor has stop responding and his reason is undoubtedly against Wikipedia's well-accepted policy which states Wikipedia's job is to summarize what the reliable sources say. If multiple reliable sources are reporting something, we cannot just ignore it because we disagree with what the reporting is. If sources conflict with each other or there is concern that the sources got the answer wrong, we can simply attribute the statements (e.g., Multiple sources have reported that...). Minhle20002013 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Alcoholics Anonymous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.60.170.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [128] 14:53, September 12, 2022
2. [129] 17:21, September 12, 2022
3. [130] 00:56, September 13, 2022
4. [131] 02:16, September 13, 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning: [132]; Second warning: [133]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [135] Sundayclose (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

Note IP has blanked various warning messages, including the 3RR warning, although they have not reverted after blanking the 3RR warning. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have conceded to the edits insisted upon and have left them while appended a critical qualifier that makes clear that population was not just those told go to AA by 12 step program, if it were that simple, but in fact, the populations of the Cochrane review were only those told to go and those that did go.

What I have conceded to is allowing the phrase “actively directed” which makes no sense in this case; when does a clinical intervention ever inactively direct? That said, that nonessential wording remains to which has been added the qualifier “and actually go to AA”

These are minor distinctions, but the earlier edit misrepresented to review’s population by literal magnitudes. Those told to go to AA are exponentially more numerous than those that do go. This has been cleared up at the moment and I’m fine with the verbose verbiage, though naturally would prefer otherwise. 66.60.170.151 (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

If you were happy with Sundayclose's wording, why did you feel the need to change it? —C.Fred (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This user has had issues with edit warring in Alcoholics Anonymous for a long time, they have been warned before (e.g. this warning and this warning from 2021), and they continue to engage in a pattern of edit warring by reverting other editors. Some problematic reverts of theirs, besides the ones mentioned above:

• This two-edit revert to one of my edits. I wasn’t going to go in to an edit war over whether or not to use the passive voice, but I still feel it’s bad wording
• this revert to these edits contributed by another editor. I understand there was a talk page discussion and sources supporting reverting this edit were added, but it still feels a bit like a WP:OWN violation.

SkylabField (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No violation It's hard to see this as a completely pure example of edit warring, and it also does not seem to have continued since it was reported. Talk page discussion is taking place although it seems both sides are dug in, but we can still have hope ...

As for the IP's behavior noted above, this might be a long-term thing better handled at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m going to ask a third party who I know understands the content we are edit warring about to share his opinion about this particular edit war. There have been, as I pointed out, long term issues with this editor, ones over and above the ones I have spelled out above, but it’s in the realm of WP:DE and this is the first time they have straight up violated WP:3RR. Since they have erased their talk page warnings, that hopefully indicates they now understand to respect consensus, but we will see. SkylabField (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy is your unfortunate characterization 66.60.170.151 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: United States Civil Rights Trail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110466595 by Praxidicae (talk)"
2. 15:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110455588 by Theroadislong (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC) to 15:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 12:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC) "Removed UNESCO designation from a landmark."
   2. 15:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Added state-by-state landmark chart with Wikipedia links, physical location, and select notes under Wikipedia guidelines."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

see ani discussion and discussion on users talk page. Warning was given yesterday for 3rr. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

False. I'd LOVE to understand every process and excel at them. The militancy here is remarkable. I'm dealing with a serial bully and stalker, and simply don't have the time and/or interest to devote to multiple fronts. Bottom line: I fully disclosed my status and client under Wikipedia guidelines. I added relevant, accurate, well-written content under Wikipedia guidelines. I even disclosed to the original commenter that I AM NO LONGER UNDER CONTRACT and simply adding content to a subject – U.S Civil Right – that is personally important and clearly socially relevant. My sincerest apologies if I've yet to master every communication protocol or refuse to engage in pointless, childish arguments over being a professional. I focus on content. That's what I do and why I'm paid well for my work, a very tiny fraction of which comes from Wikipedia contributions. I am willing to talk with anyone at a civil, adult level. I will NOT be bullied and harassed under any circumstances. Why that appears to be acceptable here is beyond my comprehension. Danceswithedits (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from page for 1 week, before I even saw this report. DWE may not believe this, but this was, I think, very lenient on my part. Declared paid contributors are still on a fairly short leash. Edit warring your prefered content into an article you're being paid for is fundamentally unacceptable. This is probably DWE's last chance to understand and accept this concept. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Amanda A. Brant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [136]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109941542 by Sbishop (talk). Rv new addition without consensus, restore long-time stable version. Discuss your proposed addition and obtain consensus first."
2. 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1109869728 by Aircorn (talk). Restore stable version, there is no consensus for this new addition and WP:UNDUE inclusion of this far-right fringe POV in the lead."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Total of three edits attempting to remove this sourced material. Page is under a WP:1RR restriction (which has been unambiguously violated) and gender discretionary sanctions, as clearly stipulated when clicking "undo". User's repeated insistence that this material is "new" and an "addition" is inaccurate; it has been in the lead since 29 August and remained in place ever since despite many edits. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In the ten hours since the last revert, has anyone actually asked Amanda to self-revert, or beyond the edit notice actively pointed out that the second revert was out of process? As far as I can tell, there has been no activity on the article talk, or the user talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

When someone reverts once, we wouldn't normally warn them pre-emptively in case they start edit warring. But for 1RR pages, after two reverts, the violation is done. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. Ten hours have passed between the last revert, and the filing of this report. There doesn't seem to be urgency here, as the 1RR breach hasn't just happened. While it is a technical breach of the restriction, asking an editor to self-revert after any RR violation is considered a show of good faith. Even the instructions for filing a report here ask if any attempts were made prior to filing to resolve an edit war. That includes asking the editor who has breached the bright-line rule if they were aware they had done so, and if they would like to self-revert now that they are aware. There are naturally exceptions to this, particularly for a fast moving edit war, but as there is no urgency in this report, this does not appear to be that circumstance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is under 1RR for a very good reason. Given they have had experience at AE on Gender and sexuality sanctions as well as the standard notices I find it hard to believe that they are a good faith editor who has just happened to stumble into a controversial topic unaware of the controversial nature of said topic. Their edit summaries lead a bit to be desired too and are suggestive of a battleground attitude. Still a block may not be necessary if they acknowledge the 1RR violation and agree to take future disagreements to the talk page instead of edit warring. Aircorn (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have only reverted this edit twice, once on 12 September and once on 13 September, about 19 hours later. I didn't realize that this particular article had a one revert restriction (which is an exception, and one that I wasn't that familiar with; I can't recall editing other articles with such a restriction), for which I apologize, and I obviously wouldn't have reverted it after 19 hours if I had. (Due to the large number of templates at the top of the talk page this restriction isn't exactly easy to notice, and should ideally be more visible than it is today). Since it has already been reverted it's not possible for me to self-revert.

The larger issue here, however, is the edit-warring to include a new, biased sentence in the lead, instead of seeking consensus for it on the talk page, per WP:BRD. The stable version, that ends with the fair summary "In academic discourse, there is no consensus on whether TERF constitutes a slur", has been stable at least since 2019. Claiming on 12 September that a new highly biased sentence that was added on 29 August without consensus or discussion and that has since been edit-warred into the article is "the stable version" speaks for itself, and shows a lack of willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue to obtain consensus in the spirit of WP:BRD. Particularly given the controversial nature of the article and the fact that this part of the lead has been stable for around three years, highly controversial changes to it should be discussed, rather than edit-warred into the article, again per WP:BRD. I immediately enouraged those seeking to include this new material to engage in dialogue and seek consensus for it on the talk page, which they ignored. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not gonna make any comment about what should happen here, but like Crossroads says the restriction is made clear through the notices that pop up when you press undo, before confirming the edit, so you don't need to go on the talk page to see it. If I go to that article right now and press undo on Crossroads edit, the screen practically screams at me about the the conditions the article is under. So unless it is somehow different for you or you scrolled down quickly and didn't notice it you would think it would be pretty obvious. Again not gonna make a comment on what the end result should be either way, but that seemed odd to me. TylerBurden (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I must have missed it because I scrolled down too quickly, for which I am sincerely sorry. A one revert restriction has not been an issue in any other articles that I've edited, as far as I can recall, but I've been confronted by visually similar text that seemed much more routine, e.g. here [137]. Now that I'm more aware of the one revert restriction I will obviously never make the same mistake again. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Also there has been some description in the lead of critics describing the term in terms of violent rhetoric for as long as I can remember (including 2019). The edits a month ago (which on a well watched article is usually considered stable) merely changed the wording of the sentence, if anything softening it. Aircorn (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The sentence was added on August 12, not August 29: see diff. gnu57 16:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked Since Amanda has been editing here regularly for almost a year without getting blocked, and

• she has apologized for missing the 1RR notice when reverting,
• the edit was relatively recent,
• discussion has started on the talk page, and
• the reverting has stopped,

I will take it on good faith that this was not a willful or reckless violation, and let things go for now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Goguryeo (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: [138]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Goguryeo

1. [139]
2. [140]
3. [141]
4. [142]
5. [143]
6. [144]

Protectorate General to Pacify the East

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]
5. [149]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150], [151]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [152]

Comments:
Korean nationalist engaged in edit warring and other problematic behavior such as removal of sources ([153], [154], [155]), replacement with primary sources despite others having explained how that is not how Wikipedia works long ago [156], general insistence that primary sources are better ([157], [158], [159]), accusing others of vandalism and "distortion" and WP:OWN based on whose right it is to add what content [160], nationalist POV editing [161], and previous WP:NPA based on racial and supposed political affiliations (ANI: [162]). See their edit history and ANI for further context. None of the problematic behavior pointed out by multiple users in the June ANI have stopped and the user has continued to exhibit the same behavior in their recent edit history. Qiushufang (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Salvio 22:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Capture of Fez (1576) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110447303 by R Prazeres (talk) Source indeed shows support to this eddit, it isn't question of a POV, if you keep pushing your POV you'll be reported. Source clearly shows that Abd al-Malik left the regency of Algiers, which is an independent state to the Ottoman Empire, the only link between them is a religious link. Kabyles fought in the war and therefore it is clearly valid to state the Algerian-Ottoman victory."
2. 12:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110350942 by R Prazeres (talk) Sourced and verified, don't edit war again or you'll be reported."
3. 00:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC) "Next time don"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Invited editor to go to the talk page in this edit summary and through the editwar warning on their talk page. They don't seem to understand the process or don't want to. I won't revert them again myself due to 3RR at this point, and I can't compel them to the talk page any other way; I'm hoping a short ban and independent revert will help. (Note: If relevant, the French source added by the editor doesn't add anything new that it isn't already in the article or any further support for their edit, contrary to what they claim; either way, it should go to the talk page.) R Prazeres (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you have not invited me to talk before reverting my edit. You directly went into reverting my edits without talking. Therefore, here, you're at fault.

When you invited me to talk, you reverted my edit and therefore showed that you're not willing to talk at all. I accepted to talk with you about this matter but you directly went and reported me to the Administrators. You are again at fault here.

The reason I put this change is clearly stated in my last edit. I don't know if you're acting in bad faith but the french source states exactly that the Abd al-Malik went to the Regency of Algiers to gather an army. You clearly know that but decided to ignore this part.

For these reasons, and especially because of his bad faith, a ban for the reporter will be appreciated. TheUniqueFennec (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• It will be up to the admin to evaluate the rest, but I forgot to note this part of their reply on the user talk page, which goes in hand with the behaviour shown so far: "I will keep reverting any further edit that contradicts my valid reference." R Prazeres (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. The reverts, together with the promise to continue reverting, make the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Darlene Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1015:B12A:32D:0:56:50D3:4001 (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:

• Blocked I have rangeblocked 2600:1015:B100:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 31 hours. Salvio 11:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Josh Cahill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SkyGeek123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]
5. [168]

And last week:

1. [169]
2. [170]
3. [171]
4. [172]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Josh_Cahill#Most_Watched_Flight_Reviewer]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [174]

Comments:

The account has made 81 edits since it was created just over a year ago. 51 of these (63%) have been to the article Josh Cahill (48 to the article, three to its talk page). They are aggressively restoring promotional language, and making false accusations of vandalism while doing so. Five reverts in a short period today, four in a similar spree last week. The IP 77.242.124.204 has previously behaved similarly. 62.30.195.57 (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• Both blocked: the IP for 48 hours and SkyGeek123 for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Nicola Spurrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 49.178.160.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) latest IP
• 49.178.166.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) original IP

Original addition, which part was removed as unsourced initially: 17:06, 13 September 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:19, 15 September 2022
2. 11:58, 15 September 2022 as 49.178.160.86 here and above
3. 05:00, 15 September 2022 as 49.178.166.29 here and below
4. 11:58, 15 September 2022
5. 05:00, 15 September 2022
6. 13:11, 14 September 2022
7. 09:50, 14 September 2022 NPA
8. 07:13, 14 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 05:35, 15 September 2022

• 05:41, 15 September 2022 "discuss on talk page" left on user talk:49.178.166.29

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nicola Spurrier#Name dropping

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

• to 49.178.160.86 19:46, 15 September 2022
• to 49.178.166.29 19:49, 15 September 2022

Comments:

Original IP was 49.178.166.29, latest two edits 49.178.160.86

Note personal attack on ES here 09:50, 14 September 2022

Anon added content here 17:06, 13 September 2022, which a number of errors were corrected by Melcous. The anon restored the sentence "She is the only person besides Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bush and Danny DeVito to have a virus named after them." This was in error (more than those four had bacteria named after them) and WP:NAMEDROP. The rest of Melcous' and my reverts were essentially that the mention of Arne, Bush, and DeVito was unnecessary. Adakiko (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Added similar namedrop/coatrack to Lactic acid bacteria. Adakiko (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The /21 range both IPs are on has been Blocked – for a period of 72 hours due to the reverts going beyond three within the requisite time period and the incivility demonstrated in the process. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YantarCoast (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. [175]
2. [176]
3. [177]
4. [178]
5. [179]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

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

Comments:

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

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, along with the IP 124.246.104.27, who similarly exceeded the limit without an exception. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Venkat_TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [182]
2. [183]
3. [184]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [185]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [186]

Comments:

User:Venkat_TL repeatedly add a section consisting entirely of original research. They keep re-adding it without the support of reliable secondary sources. Quoting exclusively primary sources of there own choosing does not constitute WP:RS. They rev the friendly notice given to them on there talk page.

They are also blocked in the past for edit warring

• Comment I don't think you can count the third diff provided as a revert. It seems to have built on the second revert by adding content, rather than reverting again. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not blocked Per above; also this was two days ago and has not recurred. Yet. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I assume you made a mistake in the template? Bommai123 was not blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23:  Fixed Thank you ... I get that one mixed up sometimes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case:, I dont see Bommai blocked yet. He continues his disruption. Venkat TL (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Not on this article, AFAICT. If he is being disruptive elsewhere, to the point that you believe there has been an actionable policy violation, report it here or wherever may be appropriate. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case ok. I see someone has already reported him as a sockpuppet. I also share the suspicion. Will wait to see what happens in the report. Venkat TL (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Windows XP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 103.144.175.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 04:31, 17 September 2022‎ UTC "Removed the word "in favor of" *shutdowns* *Windows XP shutdown sound playing*"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Please stop changing the page"
2. 04:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Stop changing the page; this one is better"
3. 04:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Thats it! You should tell me the reason why you revert my edits and i changed the page because the word "in favor of" is the worst word ever"
4. 04:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Added an invisible comment"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Windows XP."
2. 04:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Windows XP."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Persistent, non-constructive edits even after 3RR warning. General Ization ^Talk 05:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Macta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: LaHire07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110830518 by M.Bitton (talk) A picture of the source is in the talk page. So the verification tag is not needed anymore, since the source is accessible by everyone."
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC) to 20:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110829948 by M.Bitton (talk) It's not a "claim", it's an account from a modern professional historian whom assertion doesn't break any consensus."
   2. 20:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "If you were intellectually honest, you would remove them by yourself, considering I put a picture of the source on the talk page so that you could see it with your own eyes"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC) to 20:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 20:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC) ""French claim" is not a maintenance tag"
   2. 20:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Verification done in talk page, and it's written by professional modern and reknown historians, it's not a "claim"..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Battle of Macta."
2. 20:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• They have also violated the 3R policy on the Battle of Sidi Brahim article (while reverting myself and another editor). M.Bitton (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked from editing the affected pages for 2 weeks. There was hardly room for a different decision as, four minutes after a read receipt, the edit warring had been continued. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Guardians of the Galaxy (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2603:8000:7007:aa00:9406:bce9:5e7:a23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [188]
2. [189]
3. [190]
4. [191]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [193]

Comments:

• Blocked 48 hours for disruption via AIV.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Reverted to the consensus version. You can't change all those parts without discussing all of them first."
2. 18:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "This is the end-result of the discussion several days ago. You were also part of it but you stopped being present on the talk page since 29 august 2022, after you claimed you were going to respond soon to Dragoon 17 regarding the unclear arabic modifier. And now after 20 days you just made edits to the article without explanation."
3. 16:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "That one edit was a consensus agreed on the talk page. Don't oversimplify it further, especially by cutting important points. It could cause further disagreements in the future."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Revert */ new section"

Comments:

Note the stonewalling and repeated reversion, including of other editors, despite being asked of by EdJohnston to refrain. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, taking into account this warning. Salvio 13:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Salvio giuliano: Thanks. Might I suggest that an indefinite partial-block from the page will be a better fit, since we are dealing (evidence) with a SPA? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't seen enough evidence to support ad indefinite partial block yet. What I see is a new editor who is eager but unfamiliar with our way of doing things. Let's see if a short block is enough to get him to slow down and adopt a more collegial approach. If it isn't, stronger measures can be considered. Salvio 13:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sure - I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JamesLewisBedford01 (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]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [200]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [201]

Comments:

• I tried to bring this to the editor's attention in the hope that they would self revert, after extensive discussions on their talk page and my talk page not only do they still contend not to have gone over 3rr they bewilderingly contend that they haven't made any reverts at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: Bookmaniac120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */ : A reference added"
2. 16:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */: Added a set of new lines from a recent book on the subject. Reference is given. The book may be checked."
3. 16:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */: Added a new reference from an important book (from Cambridge University Press) that deals with the relationship between urban commons, accumulation and urban property."
4. 15:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */"
5. 15:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */"
6. 15:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "/* Urban commons */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Apparent selfpromoter, edit warring to include a reference to their book. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Salvio 17:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 01:07, 18 September 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:08, 18 September 2022
2. 01:38, 18 September 2022
3. 01:41, 18 September 2022
4. 02:00, 18 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:42, 18 September 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Policy explained on user talk page by Sidewipe9th

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 02:47, 18 September 2022

Comments:
Editor reverted again after policy was explained to them. Page is under discretionary sanctions.

• Comment: The content he is trying to edit war into the article is a serious BLP violation. Also, I note that after getting reverted the first time, he switched to using the minor edit flag. That looks like an attempt to evade detection. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: The 01:08, 18 September 2022‎ diff adds content but is not a revert. I first reverted the first two additions per MOS:DEADNAME [202] at 01:16‎, then Volleyballjerry reverted three times to restore the content added at 1:08. Beccaynr (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Since the DEADNAME has been added in that location before, e.g. here, I think the first edit still counts as a revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)
    • To be honest, I don't really care whether the first edit was a revert or not. The user is quite clearly edit warring against consensus. It can be a violation of WP:EW or a violation of WP:3RR, but it's blockable disruption nonetheless. My only qualm here is that the editor has not edited in nine hours and, so, I'm not sure disruption is ongoing. So, I'd personally rather wait and see what he does when he starts editing again... Salvio 11:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Newimpartial, given the history of this article, I had wondered if the first edit was technically a revert. But the edit warring against consensus is disruptive regardless - I was watching the article for a more clear indication of an intent to continue after my message on their Talk page at 2:12 [203], which points to previous Talk page discussions. I had planned to report here if they continued. We also recently had something similar, but slightly different happen on the related Emma Weyant article, which resulted in a 72 hour block for an IP, so I was thinking about that situation as well. Beccaynr (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

        Sorry about screwing up the reporting on the first revert. But as already said, deadnaming is disruptive regardless, especially after being explicitly told such, and the article is subject to discretionary sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Lea Michele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "I request a new consensus, this photo is superior"
2. 21:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "A clearer picture"
3. 20:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC) "A clearer picture"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC) on Talk:Lea Michele "/* Photo choice */ new section"

Comments:

After consensus has been reached at Talk:Lea Michele#Photo choice, user has continued to revert the page. They have also displayed consistent WP:OWNership behavior over the article. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [204]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]
4. [208]
5. [209]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [211]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [212]

Comments:

• Continued reversions after warnings and requests to discuss on talk. See also reversions at Jackiey Budden. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked (see block log for additional bases besides edit-warring).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: September 2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [213]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:
Changing the article lead without proper references. Reverted by multiple users over a period of days. The proposed changes are being opposed at the article talk page. Not self reverting despite notification. Viewsridge (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Viewsridge, there are multiple users opposed to the reverts you are making. You claimed the sources I added were opinion pieces and never replied when I explained they aren't. You haven't replied to me in the talk page for days, and you revert all of my changes instead of just the ones you disagree with. You never responded to User:Knižnik's reply either. I wish you would've been more active in the talk page if you still had any concerns.

Also, the first two diffs you linked are not reverts. And I didn't even edit the article after your "warning", which you made this report 10 minutes after. I had also warned you of edit warring after you made 5 reverts in less than 24 hours. --Dallavid (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article, so as to work things out on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Himara Revolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "see tp, avoid POV. If you add Xhufi, I'll add Giakoumis, Tsaknakis, Vakalolpoulos"
2. 17:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Greek also participated - LEAD"
3. 16:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "take it to RSN, Vakalopoulos is also widely used by Albanian editors so far"
4. 01:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "it's sourced and verified"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221] has received several 3RR warning recently on their talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion on the talk page of the article, sth also on my tp

Comments:

• First reverted Alltan, then Çerçok, then Alltan, then Alltan again. The editor has received several 3RR warnings lately, as they breached the 3RR on August 24 at Margariti (There he first readded Këshilla to the See also section after FierakuiVertete removed it [222], and then removed the Albanian name from the lede 3 times [223][224][225]) and on August 26 at Template:Greeks in Albania too ((First reverted Alltan [226], then rv SuperDro [227], reverted Ahmet Q. [228], reverted Alltan again [229]). There are also several articles where Alexikoua made 3 revertes within 24 hours recently, such as Himara. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The example provided does not demonstrate a fourth revert inside a 24-hour window, and from what I can tell, User:Çerçok and Ktrimi991 are heavily involved in the opposing revert each time. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The admins can check the diffs and ask me if need be for clarification. Years ago you tried to derail an SPI report I had filed but the reported editor got blocked anyway; from that I assume that responding to you here will only produce some walls of text. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You were involved that time in trying to purge an opponent to your agenda, and you're involved this time as well. Please don't try to pretend that you are someone who stands above the dynamics and is only interested in upholding policies. The very page for which you accuse Aexikoua of edit-warring despite him not being in violation of any rule is one to which the revision sits as you last reverted, and it's the second time alone this day that your signature is on the revision history having reverted. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat previous actions by producing a wall of text and provoking TLDR but I will merely urge whichever administrator who takes action here to apply the same sanctions to the other two or three persons to have contributed to the disagreement. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"and it's the second time alone this day that your signature is on the revision history having reverted" In 6 years of editing on enwiki, I have made 2 reverts at that article - those today. Not sure what do you mean, but whatever it is not surprising at all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean what I said in my last post. The comment stands and I withdraw no part of it. I didn't ask how long you've edited. You've come here to report a person who has not violated EW policies and against whom you have militated twice in the past hours, and it is not the first time you have resorted to this antic in the hope of eliminating opponents. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• To the closing admin Check the diffs for the 3 cases of the 3RR breaches carefully, and do not rely on comments by non-admin editors. In the Balkan topic area it is common that some editors comment to derail the report with misleading comments. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• To the closing admin. I have struck out comments where I said 3RR has not been breached. I mistook an "18" for a "16" due to the colour coding settings which confused me. At the same time, please consider that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himara_Revolt&diff=1110998757&oldid=1110986863, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himara_Revolt&diff=1110970605&oldid=1110969857 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himara_Revolt&diff=1110894589&oldid=1110864223 constitute a classic case of WP:TAGTEAM. Nobody is upholding policies here and nobody has issued edit-warring templates to anyone, and the timing of Ktrimi's second disruptive revert did not give Alexioua a fair chance to self-revert. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment [230] I personally gave Alexikoua a warning about EW just 3 days ago. He's a very experienced user who is aware of the situation when he's edit-warring and when he breaches 3RR. The rules should apply to everyone. I'm about 2 years on wiki and I've always tried to never do more than 2 reverts at any given dispute. I just calm down and go to the talkpage. This didn't happen here and there should for once be consequences. It's not even the first time that Alexikoua is reported about placing 4 reverts [231], and a long time editor should know better than that.Alltan (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to disagree with certain statements above by Ktrimi991. I am among the main contributors of the specific article since 2016 but this is the first time I am part of an edit war [[232]]. An editwar has always two sides but Ktrimi991 performed two reverts [[233]][[234]] without the slightest participation in talkpage [[235]]. As already described above there is a clear wp:TAGTEAM pattern, with editors even reverting without posting anything in the correspondent talkpage.

When the situation is getting hot I'm always used to self-revert ([[236]], [[237]]) and carefully avoid any further edit before reaching consensus in talkpage. However, Ktrimi didn't offer me this opportunity here. Instead he jumped into action [[238]] and I wonder why he also reverted an obvious copy-edit correction in 'aftermath' section.Alexikoua (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You have breached the 3RR three times in less than a month, not to mention other cases with 3 reverts within 24 hours. A "self-revert" after being reported does not solve that, reflection on your long-term behaviour does. Ktrimi991 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. A self-revert does annul the last of the actions potentially bringing an editor back to within a state of pre-3RR. It's all in the guidelines. It is a clear fact that Alexikoua is presently at odds across numerous articles with the same two-three accounts and all over the same Greek-Albanian disputes (not sure anyone means by "Balkan" here), and so it is completely inappropriate to impute the finger of blame at one person and to cultivate the opposite lobby as the white knight of the project. He mentioned TAG TEAM which is another guided policy and this has not yet been addressed by any one of Alexikoua's detractors. I know bullying when I see it. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You can be edit warring even if you do not breach 3-rr. The three-revert rule is a bright-line test, but you can be blocked even if do not approach that level of reverts, as long as there is evidence that you are edit warring. So, while a self-revert can be taken into account, it's not a get out of jail free card. Now, moving on to the case at hand, @Alexikoua:, there is evidence that you were edit warring. I don't particularly like blocking productive editors, especially in the light of the fact that the edit war has apparently stopped for the moment; so I'm amenable to closing this with a warning, but I'd like to be reassured that, going forward, when you are reverted you will start discussing the issue on the talk page immediately, instead of first reverting a bunch of times and then moving on to the talk page. Salvio 10:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: I see your point about being reluctant to block an old editor, but 3 breaches of the 3RR in less than a month and edit warring on other articles are not a small thing. To give Alexikoua a chance to avoid a block while making sure the edit warring does not cause more mess on controversial Balkan articles, could an "official" revert restriction be imposed on Alexikoua? In the past such Balkan issues were often solved by imposing on the editor 0RR or 1RR which were removed after 6 months if the editor respected the rules. Can sth similar be done here; Alexikoua is aware of the ARBMAC rules regarding the Balkans. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that I saw it, in 2010 a revert restriction was imposed on Alexikoua [239]. A similar one IMO could be used again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is probably a matter of different editing philosophies, I try to stick to the principle that blocks are preventative and not punitive as much as possible. So, if there is no disruption occurring right now, I prefer a discussion to restrictions and sanctions, especially when the editor in question is productive. Furthermore, even if I blocked him, the block ought to be lifted as soon as he gave credible assurances that he understands what the problem was and that he will no longer violate the relevant policy. If we can obtain the same result without resorting to blocks or restrictions, in my experience, it's better for all the people involved. Then again, this is only the opinion of a single administrator; any other passing administrator can decide that I'm being too lenient and impose a block or a restriction himself. Salvio 12:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: Ofc restrictions should not be used to "punish" but to prevent disruption. I am supportive of "official" restrictions because they provide clarity. For instance, I need a clarification: lets say that after 2 weeks Alexikoua makes 3 reverts within 24 hours on an article and stops there to not breach the 3RR. That would be edit warring given Alexikoua's history. What would you do in that case? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, every report is actioned on the basis of its specific circumstances, so I can't make predictions concerning hypothetical future violations... However, I'll say that, as I'm sure you know, there is also WP:AE, which takes a different approach. This board is meant to address active (or recent) edit warring and the administrator actioning any report will usually take into account previous incidents, to decide whether sanctions are appropriate and their duration; AE, on the other hand, deals with long-term problems and can impose sanctions and restrictions even in cases where a hypothetical WP:ANEW report might be closed as stale. Salvio 13:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

At least to report here I use Twinkle; to prepare a whole AE report with all the diffs and explanations that are needed I will have to sacrifice my free time. Or to just let Alexikoua edit war if they choose to do so. I did not report Alexikoua's two previous 3RR breaches because I did not have enough time, and you are suggesting to me to report them again at the time-consuming AE if they edit war for a fourth time. Anyways.... Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I acknowledge the fact that I was edit warring in this case and I have to apology to the community for this. My general contribution shows that I'm focused on improving articles in a multitude of topics and on cooperation with co-editors. As such in case I'm reverted I'll always resort in discussing the disputes on the talk page ASAP as the only possible way to establish a new version. I have also to thank @Coldtrack: for providing a detailed neutral picture on the dispute as an uninvolved editor.Alexikoua (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Salvio giuliano: Time to close this. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks, I'd say we can close this as Warned Salvio 09:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Melissa DeRosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2603:9000:830B:9E04:F085:6B50:F0AD:1B37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [240] 17:43, 15 February 2022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [241] ‎14:03, 19 September 2022
2. [242] 16:03, 19 September 2022
3. [243] 02:12, 20 September 2022
4. [244] 03:54, 20 September 2022
5. [245] 13:25, 20 September 2022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [246] 02:20, 20 September 2022

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Request at their talk page to discuss at the article Talk page [247] 16:20, 19 September 2022

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [248]

Comments:

• I reported to RFPP at 16:25, 19 September 2022 and was advised to Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. I followed up at RFPP [249] at 02:33, 20 September 2022 and have not received a reply. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As an update: I got a reply at RFPP [250], and the admin has edited the article and recused from taking administrative action to avoid any appearance of being WP:INVOLVED. Beccaynr (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected indefinitely. An IP range has been steadily reverting this article over a nine-month period without waiting for agreement on talk. Note also the current partial block on Special:Contributions/2603:9000::/32 by User:Daniel Case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Owain Glyndŵr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Welsh Revolt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Royal Marines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IagoHughes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1111343109 - revert, no edit summary (as it happens I agree with this revert, but Iago makes no attempt to explain to the reverted editor their action, a common theme here)
2. Special:Diff/1111332164 - revert without acknowledgement of a talk page thread and article tag being recently added to make them aware of the policy on lead length, and the reverted editor already explaining their change on the talk page
3. Special:Diff/1111023164 - revert, a particularly clear case of POV-pushing
4. Special:Diff/1110112197 - revert, no edit summary
5. Special:Diff/1110112197 - revert, no edit summary
6. Special:Diff/1104083861 - revert, no edit summary
7. Special:Diff/1094474415 - revert, no edit summary
8. Special:Diff/1110353453, Special:Diff/1110353553 and Special:Diff/1110353553 - batch reversion without edit summary or participation in relevant talk page thread
9. Special:Diff/1110831356, Special:Diff/1110831732 and Special:Diff/1110838998 - edit warring to restore recently added content I had contested as unreliable (see attempted talk page resolution below).
10. Special:Diff/1111235406, Special:Diff/1111235655 removal of inline cleanup tags without resolving them

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Special:Diff/1109577506/1110354901 - see previous warnings, too

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Special:Permalink/1111300338#Breverton does not seem to be a good source, discussion only relates specifically to warring at Welsh Revolt and Owain Glyndŵr. See my comment below for further explanation

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

• Special:Diff/1111363901

Comments:

• Previously blocked for edit warring on the same topics in April. Immediately resorts to reversion despite ample warning. Generally refuses to engage with other editors, particularly when they disagree; to their credit they did reply to one thread about an unreliable source they've been pushing forward, but then stopped participating when the evidence challenged their stance. Competence issues combined with nationalist POV-pushing and a disregard/disinterest in understanding policies brought to their attention makes their edit warring even more disruptive. Jr8825 • Talk 16:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Jr8825: I don't get it. With respect to Owain Glyndŵr, they've only edited the article twice today; before that, you have to go back to September 15. With respect to Royal Marines, they haven't edited the article since September 13. I see no basis for taking any action. If you're interested in sanctioning the editor for more generalized misconduct than recent edit-warring, you should seek such sanctions at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  I reasoned that as the main part of their disruption is consistent misuse of reverts and warring below the 3RR bright-line (and given their previous block for this), this would be the simplest and most direct forum. If you think ANI is more appropriate given the complexity of their disruption, I'm fine with taking it there. Jr8825 • Talk 17:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• No action - filer to go to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Yonatan Netanyahu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Lofogirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
and Kzqj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [251]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Last revert by Lofogirl
2. Last revert by Kzqj
3. Lofogirl
4. Kzqj
5. Lofogirl
6. Kzqj
7. Lofogirl
8. Kzqj
9. Lofogirl
10. Kzqj

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Kzqj and Lofogirl

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a. I have not edited this article so don't think it would make sense for me to start the Talk page discussion. There is nothing recent on the Talk page.

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

Comments:
I haven't edited this page but have tried to work out what the actual content dispute is and failed. There are around ten reversions before the diffs posted above, the whole thing appearing to start on 16 September 2022. I posted to both users' Talk pages (using softer wording as one editor appears to be new and the other fairly new), but both have reverted each other since I posted on their Talk pages. Tacyarg (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The account "Lofogirl" seems to be purely devoted to disruption, having done literally nothing except for making ten identical reverts to this article. I do not think there is a content dispute. I think the edits of User:Lofogirl are vandalism. Kzqj (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Lofogirl is Blocked indefinitely as a NOTHERE SPA, Kzqj is Blocked – for a period of 24 hours because Lofogirl's edits are not obvious vandalism, and because they never did any of the things that responsible editors are expected to do in this situation, such as initiate talk page discussion or warn the other editor directly, they just kept on edit warring (In fact, it is only because I indeffed Lofogilr that Kzqj is getting the minimum block time ... their reverts would otherwise IMO have merited a week-long block). Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I have upgraded Kzjq to Blocked indefinitely as it seems they may be yet another sock of the Best known for IP LTA. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111224163 by MrOllie (talk) Removing a poorly sourced and misleading, impartial truth. See Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#Collective_action_of_edit_warringtalk page"
2. 23:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "Back to the drawing board (or the talk page in this case)."
3. 23:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "WP:BOLD and census-driven, per discussion in talk."
4. 14:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "As a biography of a living person, it is very important to get it right and contentious copy should remain in the talk page until consensus has been reached. Bon courage is not participating in the discussion and is instead resorting to repeated and disruptive reverts of good faith edits."
5. 03:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "FFF is right; none of the things mentioned as control measures were identified as control measures by any of the articles sourced and therefore that statement should be revised by consensus before being replaced. See talk page for more."
6. 22:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110958692 by Hob Gadling (talk) "age-targeted viral testing" might be considered fantasy by some editors but that doesn't change the fact Kulldorff supported it and that fact was documented by a previously accepted source. See talk for more details."
7. 14:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1110902452 by Bon courage (talk) See talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "/* September 2022 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "/* We have a source which says just this anyway */"

Comments:

• Please note that MCW was already formally warned once, by EdJohnston for edit warring at the same article in January. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• I'd also note the user has created an entire subpage dedicated to the theme of how they're a lone voice of truth battling with a cabal of misguided editors wrt Martin Kulldorff. That mindset seems to be manifesting itself with the renewed behaviour/arguments in evidence at the article. A partial block might be called for and/or this might need to go to ANI? Edit summaries like this suggest this is not good-faith engagement but some kind of trolling against the "organized and collective"[252] foe that is perceived.Bon courage (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC); expanded 09:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• The timeline presented by MrOllie does not include the entire incident, which I have provided below. The core issue as I see it is that I placed a pertinent, cited addition with the first edit. That edit was repeatedly deleted in violation of this ArbCom ruling. These deletions made the copy biased. My reversion of the biased statement was to pare back to a policy-compliant version of a BLP. Any discussions had were because I first created the Talk page section and initiated discussion (good-faith editing).

1. My original edit, which was an addition to the original statement. This statement was properly sourced and written in a neutral point of view:[253]
2. Llll5032 reverted, then self-reverted (Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources, Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[254], [255]
3. Bon courage reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[256]
4. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[257]
5. Hob Gadling reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[258]
6. I created new talk section to discuss Age-targeted viral testing[259]
7. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[260]
8. Firefangledfeathers reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[261]
9. I created new talk section to discuss What is a control measure?[262]
10. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[263]
11. Bon courage reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[264]
12. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[265]
13. Llll5032 reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[266]
14. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[267]
15. MrOllie reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[268]
16. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[269]
17. MrOllie reverted (Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others ArbCom ruling)[270]
18. I reverted (exemption: removing libelous, biased copy from a BLP)[271]
19. —Edit warring complaint submitted—
20. Bon courage reverted and continues to disruptively edit around the same subject (i.e. only what Kuldorff opposed)[272]

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ; edited 16:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Some of those edits above, which Michael.C.Wright claims are libelous or biased, to not appear to clearly be. Thus, the whole of this user's defence hangs on whether he qualifies for a 3RR exemption for BLPs. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

C.Fred, is that a determination you're willing to make? Are you seeking diffs or comments to help you make a decision? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rules are for comments and replies in this process. Please forgive me if it's not my turn to comment. If there are rules or general guidelines for how we proceed, please let me know.

Regarding assertions that "age-targeted viral testing" was "new, untested and rejected by scientific consensus"; a few months before Kulldorff and Bhattacharya's article in which they talked about it, the CDC had published recommendations that included this:

Clinicians are encouraged to consider testing for other causes of respiratory illness, for example influenza, in addition to testing for SARS-CoV-2 depending on patient age, season, or clinical setting...

Timing and context matter. As late as August of 2020, the CDC felt that testing based on age was a useful measure. The statement penned by Kulldorff and Bhattacharya indicates their support for what was, at the time, a CDC recommendation—not a fringe theory. I think that is important enough to be included in the lede, alongside Kulldorff's opposition to other measures.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 22:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling talks about removing statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. The statements in question were not written in a neutral narrative according to WP:NPOV, which does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Listing generally accepted measures such as masks and lockdowns in the same sentence together with a measure that is new, untested and rejected by scientific consensus without mentioning the fringe status of that measure would present it as if it were of equal validity. The addition was WP:PROFRINGE and subject to WP:BRD and WP:WAR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. Back in January I had warned User:Michael.C.Wright against continuing to edit war on this article. Now, between September 18 and 20 he has made eight reverts. His claim that he is reverting to protect BLP seems implausible. The BLP exception (item #7 at WP:NOT3RR) is intended to exclude really scandalous material and not to prevent plausible restatements of the publicly-known views of Kulldorff. Such restatements fall under WP:DUE rather than BLP, so far as I can tell. Disagreements about DUE are to be worked out on the talk page. In case of failure to agree, consider an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

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

User being reported: 196.206.162.32 (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 01:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC) to 01:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 01:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 01:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 00:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC) to 00:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
   1. 00:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 00:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "warning about edit-warring"
2. 01:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Invited them to discuss on the talk page in this edit summary, but not much else I can do to bring an IP user to the talk page when they've already ignored all other warnings and feedback.

Comments:

IP has also edit-warred with disruptive edits at History of Morocco and has been warned on their user talk page about it. Similar IPs also did the exact same edits at that article earlier this month (see this and this). R Prazeres (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

My personal thoughts: I think that the information DEFINITELY needs more sources, but if it can be cleaned up and vetted to ensure that it follows WP policies, there might be a chance that the info can stay. However, if the guy isn't providing RS's, sadly the information has to go to the trash bin. I'm a little unsure whether BLP would apply either; since this is a ruling dynasty, I think BLP could apply and warrant the immediate removal of the content. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree there's room within the scope of the article for this kind of content, but the IP is going the wrong way about it and refusing to discuss their edits. When I sent this report the issue was more urgent because the IP's edits had compromised citations throughout the article (see this version). Thankfully, another editor (Quebec99) has since fixed that problem (as far as I see). The new material still has WP:VERIFY and WP:OR problems, and maybe WP:NPOV issues in the mix, but some of it can probably now be moved and corrected instead. The relevant topics are already covered more carefully in other articles. But little will get done if the IP continues to edit disruptively. R Prazeres (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. The two-day-old IP seems to be warring to add promotional language to the article; They have never used the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Abukir (1799) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jules Agathias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Version before reverts took place, showing differences with the 1st revert by the user Jules.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1110615658
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1110789911
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1111148429
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Abukir_(1799)&diff=prev&oldid=1111336503

3RR warning on user's talk page -----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Agathias#Edit_Warring_Report_Notice

Attempted to discuss dispute and understand why the user has reverted my information -----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Agathias#Battle_of_Aboukir

ANEW Notice posted on user's page ------> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jules_Agathias#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:
The user claims the information I have added "does not constitute a source", at first. I misunderstood this a problem with the formatting. To this end, I re-added the information, and re-added the sources, this time properly sourcing them. The user then haphazardly removed the information again and reverted the page. To this end, making a confusing comment about contemporary sources and academic sources, even though the information I have added is backed by authorities I provided both original and academic. I re-added the information, this time taking care to include page numbers and links to archive.org where the user Jules can verify the information for himself, but he reverted it once again, and the user then added a comment about the lack of verification for a specific point I added to the page (the participation of the British in the battle to be specific), which I've referred to him previously, included in one of the authorities I have linked (correspondences by W.S.D), to this end, my 4th edit of the page I had copied lots of contents from the authority to the page, and added page numbers with each citation (the user Jules had, for some reason, removed all my citations to one authority and replaced them with "citation needed", then later on decided to re-add this authority, claim he purchased the book and will be looking into it, but nevertheless he still removed several of the citations I have included from that specific authority while "properly formatting" others). The user Jules stood corrected after I copied contents from one authority, but still went ahead and reverted the page in its entirety and told me that I can add the British as a belligerent in the battle. It is also worth mentioning that the user Jules has arbitrarily removed another authority from the page, not added by me, for reasons unknown, but I cannot trust that they are made in good faith since he has removed my citations, before conceding and adding them back in his subsequent revert on a selective basis, and his refusal to verify the information I had previously added despite being given direct links to pages on archive.org. The sum-up of what I understand from this altercation is that the user Jules wants to remove any source or authority from the page, academic or first-hand, that gives the number of the Turkish army as being smaller than 10,000, the agenda behind this I believe is bias, the user having many comments to his biases on their talk page.

To be honest, it is a rather complex and chaotic situation, owing to the difficulty of understanding what the user Jules wants to do. It is worth mentioning that there are "edit warring" warnings plastered across his talk page, so this user has a history of edit-warring and headbutting over topics of this matter. Sormando (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Addendum; to highlight the ignorance and odd behavior of this user using one microcosm, the user Jules has questioned an addition I have made to the article, the historian Paul Strathern has mentioned in his authority that Muhammad Ali had been rescued from the waters in Aboukir bay during the battle, with a reference attached to this piece of information. The user Jules had removed the citation and replaced it with "Citation Needed" selectively, but other portions of information I had added, were removed outright, citation and all. The user Jules later on decided to re-add some portions selectively, while claiming to be "properly sourcing them" (I had already done so), but he left some parts up with "citation needed" while, once again, selectively removing other portions. Then, in a truly perplexing move, the user Jules then decided that, despite me providing a direct citation to this information, went out and apparently tried to verify it himself on the internet, and replaced the citation required tag he had dutifully added with a source, which I have went to verify myself and found no reference to this information.

Links:

The aftermath section, paragraph one, the last few sentencies; "Among the Ottomans rescued from the water was thirty-years old officer of Albanian descent Muhammed Ali, who six years later would rule and transform Egypt"

The source I had added originally as a citation for this information, Page 397, 2nd paragraph last sentence.

Reversion dated 17 Sept. by user Jules, showing his citation needed tag next to sentence.

The user Jules then provides a different source to this information that I had added, although this source makes no mention to this whatsoever, which the user Jules claimed are pages 51-55 in this 1991 Johns Hopkins University Press print of "The history of modern Egypt : from Muhammad Ali to Mubarak".

Sormando (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Jules Agathias amd User:Sormando are warned. Either may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. If agreement can't be reached, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is no consensus to be reached here. Jules is removing verified information from the article, and even taking it a step ahead and inserting false sources for information I have added. What "consensus" can be reached other than removing my cited information to the article over a user's obvious biases against them? I wish you to take a proper look at this matter, I'd love to reach a consensus of some kind if there was one, but the user Jules has re-angled the reasons for his revert twice (first claiming my citations "do not constitute sources", then claiming some bits in my sources do not contain what I have added to the article which I've shown to the contrary).

  It is worth mentioning that I am not removing anything from the article, I have simply added information to it. My position is one of consensus (presenting all possible information in the article, cited and sourced). The user Jules' position on the other hand is pruning information due to personal biases, both by me and other users, and as stated above selectively adding false information to some that aren't pruned.

  
  

  05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Sormando (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Ozymandias (Breaking Bad) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MCRainbowSupernova8196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Ffs. It literally means third-to-last"
2. 02:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Jesus Christ."
3. 23:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "Fuck off. It means the same goddamn thing. Stop making this a fucking problem when it means exactly the same thing. Is it my fault your vocabulary's limited? No."
4. 11:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC) "This is ridiculous."
5. 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "It's not unnecessary. It means the same thing, it's a one-word way of saying that."
6. 16:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "Yeah, it does. Also, this is an internet encyclopedia, so why should I?"
7. 11:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC) "And you have the nerve to call the word "preantepenultimate" absurd."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Ozymandias (Breaking Bad)."
2. 02:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on To'hajiilee."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent edit warring, uncivil edit summaries, etc over various articles. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• (comment from uninvolved editor) This is not the first time MCRainbowSupernova8196 has edit-warred over some obscure terminology. See the fiasco regarding the use of the French term carambolage here and here. They were given a final warning by an administrator regarding edit warring and other combative behaviour in July 2021. This, however, did not deter them from repeat violations of the MOS when changing "is" to "was", see here and here. This is not an isolated incident, it is repeated and deliberate behaviour despite an utter excess of warnings and extensive explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• The other articles they are currently edit-warring on are The Second Coming (The Sopranos), Kennedy and Heidi and To'hajiilee (where they have been reverting other editors since 10 July). They: have said "You wanna know why my edit summaries have been "uncivil" or "personal attacks"? Cause it's goddamn ridiculous that I have to revert so many edits removing a word that is literally a one word saying of either "third-to-last" or "fourth-to-last" because so many of these people have a 10-letter limit on their vocabulary. It's infuriating." This does not look like an attitude compatible with collaborative editing. 109.144.16.251 (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked (see block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia talk:No Nazis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elephanthunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [273]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [274]
2. [275]
3. [276]
4. [277]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [278], also a prosaic warning here: [279] also user used the edit warring template on my page when they were at 2RR, here: [280]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [281] user reverted: [282]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [283]

Comments:
User posted the EW template on my talk page after my first revert, and then immediately after (or before,, I haven't checked timestamps) performed their second. Has been reverting rotely ever since. Happy (Slap me) 23:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I self-reverted before this noticeboard post was made. See [284]. That being said, I would recommend WP:BOOMERANG. Happy recklessly deleted comments. Editing other user's comments is, generally, disallowed. Happy made no attempt to cite policy for their belief that the conversation should be closed. Closing discussions is strictly a matter of consensus or policy. A conversation about closing could have continued on the talk page. Instead, Happy's actions made civil talk page discussion impossible. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is very much a case of "it takes two to edit war". I'd note that Elephanthunter had self-reverted their last revert three minutes prior to this AN3 report being submitted, which can be taken as a sign of good faith that it was a mistake per WP:3RR.

However that still leaves the actual edit war, for which I believe both editors are at fault. While Elephanthunter's reverts were in the wrong, so were HappyMcSlappy's second and third reverts. That particular talk page has seen much activity over the last few weeks, and I'm fairly certain that another editor would also have removed the comments per the seventh bullet point of WP:TPO. And while I realise my issuing of the 3RR notice only to Elephanthunter could be seen as one sided, when going to issue the notice to Happy I noticed in his talk page history that Elephanthunter had already issued a notice, and made the judgement call that even if the notice was possibly issued in bad faith, it still counted as awareness of the 3RR and EW policies.

As both editors have now ceased reverting each other, and have contributed here, I'm not entirely sure if any blocks are necessary per WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. If they are not, I would suggest a strong warning to both editors as an alternative. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: An edit war begins once there is repeated override of content. The edit war began with Happy [285], hence the warning. Also, there is no justification for Happy's deletion of my comment (nevermind their attempt to archive the entire conversation). That is not a way to have civil discussion on Wikipedia. Crazy idea: Maybe we should keep on-point and discuss the content, rather than treat the talk page like a scorched-earth WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll tell you what: Give me one good reason why that discussion should have been re-opened, several editor's comments hatted (including one calling for a close) per your own judgement and your continuation of a disruptive argument permitted, and I'll admit I was wrong and self-revert. Just one good reason why your desire to get the last word in justifies continuing a time sink like that discussion. That's all it'll take. And I don't mean some procedural wonkery. A real, rational reason.

I'd also love to hear your explanation as to how a single revert constitutes edit warring. Because it was you that was reverted? Happy (Slap me) 02:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@HappyMcSlappy: "Because it was you that was reverted?" Really. Why are you making personal and argumentative comments? Your very first interaction with me was to say that I should "Stop playing silly games" [286]. Then, you said my WP:EW notice was "Childish nonsense" [287] (a notice for, mind you, a revert of a revert). And now, you say my actions don't make sense... unless I interpret the rules to apply differently for myself? I don't understand the combativeness here.

Also, I should give "one good reason why that discussion should have been re-opened"? Maybe like in my comment that you reverted [288], where I gave constructive, actionable advice? My goal was not to "get the last word" at all. Quite literally my edit was to keep the discussion open. And there's a fair likelihood the user who started the thread would have responded. We could have discussed your concerns there too. But that's right, there's nowhere to reply because you deleted or closed all the talk page discussion.

What is so pressing about removing the suggestion of an alternative essay? That you engaged in an edit war, deleted my talk page comment, closed the conversation, and reported me to a noticeboard? --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• (Comment in non-admin capacity.) I would note that HappyMcSlappy is now edit-warring at this noticeboard to remove a comment pointing out a previous account he edited under and was involved in relevant controversies under, calling it harassment even though WP:CLEANSTART explicitly describes such comments as the likely consequence of returning to a topic area one edited under a previous account. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please note that HappyMcSlappy is almost certainly the same individual as user:MjolnirPants, the creator of that essay, operating a not-really-clean start account. See [289] and the accompanying discussion, as well as this comment [290] by user:Tamzin. 174.212.168.189 (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@174.212.168.189: Reverting other user's comments seems blockable all on its own. It seems a pretty gross violation to do so on essay created by the old account, in violation of WP:CLEANSTART (if this is in fact accurate), and on the administrators noticeboard [291] [292]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that I've removed this comment twice per WP:HARASS, (this is not the IPs first time doing this) and Elephanthunter has reverted it back here. Between the edit warring template placed on my talk page in response to a single revert, the making of four reverts (with evidence that the user was well aware they were going over 3RR to begin with) and now this, I don't think they have any leg to stand on to complain about civility.

I would also note that Tamzin, who has commented above, has a history of incivility with me which can be seen (along with ensuing criticism for it from El_C) here Happy (Slap me) 03:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

El_C took exception to my vagueness regarding why I felt you were violating WP:CLEANSTART—evidence I had omitted for your sake. You've since made clear that you have no intention to comply with that policy, so I'll be clearer: You are engaging in disputes on a page you previously engaged in disputes on, over an essay you wrote, while refusing to disclose either of those facts. I haven't looked into the details of this edit war, and frankly don't really care, but if you are going to stay involved with NONAZIS to the extent of bringing people to noticeboards, you need to disclose your previous account. It is not okay to bring someone to ANEW while seeking to obscure your own history of disruption on the very page in question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. You're upset or off-put or whatever you'd like to call it because you think you can tell I had a previous account. But you've also been making a point of trying to publicly link me to that account from our very first interaction.

And you're doing so in concert with IPs and involving some off-wiki coordination. That's some quality admin work, right there. Happy (Slap me) 04:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@HappyMcSlappy: I beg your pardon? I was pinged to this thread. If you have evidence that I'm engaged in off-wiki coördination of some sort, please send it to ArbCom. Otherwise, please retract that accusation.

Also, from "you think you can tell" and "our very first interaction", do I take it you're saying you are not MjolnirPants? Because taking the Fifth is one thing, but if you're outright denying your past history regarding NONAZIS, then this is just regular sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I will note that the connection seems to be the unanimous consensus at SPI. At the time the SPI was filed, the SPI folks thought that there was no attempt to evade scrutiny, but, like Tamzin, I find it really hard to conclude that there's not any attempt to evade scrutiny in light of the way that the editor has continued to edit on that talk page and the implicit denial in their response to Tamzin on this page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 07:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the page in question. We must be strict in dealing with edit warring on talk pages, perhaps stricter than we are with articles because there is less room for good faith, and the consensus above seems to be that both editors went too far. That is, before the discussion veered into the question of the relationship between Happy and MP ... which, while it seems ripe for reopening, is not within the scope of this noticeboard to decide, and should preferably be taken up, if not at SPI (since it seems the "whether" question is settled) at AN/I or AN as that seems to be the best forum for settling the CLEANSTART question. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Cracker (term) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. 04:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)‎ "Cracker is seen as a slur these changes are meant to represent that"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111610361 by SomeBurnerAccount (talk)"
2. 04:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111473705 by General Ization (talk)"
3. 04:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111473445 by General Ization (talk)"
4. 04:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1111473156 by General Ization (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cracker (term)."
2. 04:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "/* September 2022 */"
3. 04:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cracker (term)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Pretty much self-explanatory.General Ization ^Talk 01:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What about this is "self-explanatory" I edited a biased article that General_Ization seems to not agree with and instead of talking it out he goes straight to reporting me

Thats without even mentioning the user SomeBurnerAccount just so happened to edit the article that Ization and myself had dispute over [[User:|Caspian Delta]] (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Caspian Delta: What part of "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" did you not understand? See the multiple warnings on your Talk page, along with an explanation as to why your edits at this article were non-constructive. General Ization ^Talk 03:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about I only undid the article 3 times. You thought it would be funny to use your burner account so happened to be named "SomeBurnerAccount" to change my edit. This is not the gotcha you think it is making multiple accounts while not being part of Wikimedia Foundation or against wikis tos and can get your account terminated Sockpuppetry Caspian Delta (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add to this report unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry and personal attacks, as well as basic lack of competence reflected in the editor's inability to read the list of reverts documented above. General Ization ^Talk 03:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What about this is unfounded the account SomeBurnerAccount is extremely suspicious considering the amount of edits the account has at this time and one of the 4 so happening to be a reversion of my edit on the article that we had a disagreement about only a few hours beforehand. If you really want to verify that you don't operate account we can ask the admins to check the accounts ip if your certain that your not the one operating it. The other accusations you list are also quite absurd coming from a 15 year wiki veteran that's not willing to discuss disagreements on the classification of a slur and instead baits me into undoing an article 1 time over the limit Caspian Delta (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Caspian Delta: You were not baited into anything; you were warned twice about the 3RR limit, and yet you chose to exceed it. I have no objection whatsoever to a checkuser investigation, as I have nothing to hide, but that is not what we are here to discuss. General Ization ^Talk 03:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Page: Gabriel Boric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A01:C22:9053:B400:38BA:8A59:22C6:8C47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dentren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gabriel_Boric#Antisemitism_2

I have tried consistently to prevent edit warring on this article. Lately some users have pushed for the article to be added a NPOV tag when it is perfectly fine as it is. I have taken their issues to the talk page, but the antisemitism one remains unsolved (one user proposes calling Boric an antisemite without there being proper sources calling them like that) and the other, about calling them a left-wing politician in the lead, has not attracted much attention. Despite that, some IPs and user Dentren have started edit wars on the article, despite, as I said, efforts against such occurrences. I ask for the admins to take action such as protecting the articles and/or warning the involved users. I have already performed three reverts today so I can no longer take action, and that is why I come and ask for your intervention.

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

Comments:
Please, read the comments of user Bedivere in the Talk page:

• He wants to make the human rights in Israel as Issue in the article of G. BoriC :There are flagrant human rights violations commited by Israel against Palestinian people [293]
• He self is looking for I am yet to find a statament of Boric against the Jewish people. All I've read is that he's all against the State of Israel's actions, not that he hates the Jewish or is taking action against them. [294] He seems not to understand that reliable sources should find such statments, not the Wikipedia editors.
• He said I did not find anti-semitism claims, other than the protest of the Chilean Jewish Community (which is not the same as an anti-semitism accusation) but before he said While I agree and have never denied some people have claimed Boric is an antisemite [295]

--2A01:C22:9053:B400:38BA:8A59:22C6:8C47 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually the history of Gabriel_Boric shows that it has been Bedivere who has been warring and engaged in behaviour akin to Wikipedia:Ownership of content. He has previously warried himself on the same article for which I warned him [296]. In a nutshell; Bedivere is trying to impose his preferences in the articles relating to Boric and his government disregarding Wikipedia policies (for example deleting content on the pretext of "not news" when it is not favourable to Boric's government). Dentren | ^Talk 22:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrators may see Dentren's last comment on the article talk page (which is completely uncivil) and please note they've just reverted me. also note they were blocked for edit warring precisely in that article and has been recently warned for making stale warnings. They've also just sent me a pointless warning on my talk page, which I've promptly responded. I hope his disruptive behavior gets stopped for once and for all. The IP, in contrast, at least seeks to be constructively work and collaborate. Can't say the same about Dentren. Bedivere (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitism is not the sole thing. Bedivere's comment is missleading. Its about sourced content you have been party successfull to remove, withour concensus, since April, and the omission of other content that is missing see Talk:Gabriel Boric Dentren | ^Talk 23:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to add such contentious content. I wrote earlier this year, and stand with it today, that there is no problem against adding neutrally-written content. Giving undue weight to (minor) controversies and issues about other people (such as his former Minister of the Interior) is not correct. Bedivere (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

An now Bedivere is set to start a new edit war in 2022 Chilean national plebiscite.[297] .. Dentren | ^Talk 23:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is my last comment. This report wasn't meant to be responded by you or the IP anyway, nor me either. Such clarify tag is completely pointless as I have explained in my edit summary. Bedivere (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Bedivere has now been warned to stop warriing [298] to which he answers with this (!). Dentren | ^Talk 00:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring and I am calm and waiting for the administrators' action. Whatever will come, I'll stand for it. Bedivere (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Three months ago, almost to the day, I blocked Dentren for a week for edit-warring on the same article, right off a previous block, and they have been blocked longer since then, also for edit warring. However, neither they nor the IP seem from my review of the history and the talk page discussions to be the one at fault here. Over the past week or so, it has been Bedivere who has constantly been reverting, with various other editors on the other end. It seems that the talk page discussions are not going anywhere; I suggest it's time for DRN or RFC or something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)