Page: 2024 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StardustToStardust (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. 5th revert
2. 4th revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 2nd revert
5. 1st revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [2]

Comments:
This user has made several reverts, most of which undid my edits to the article. In their 5th revert they restored the article back to their own wording (I tweaked it to “seems to have”). Their 4th revert was them restoring the article back to how it was before I removed editorialization. Their 3rd revert removed the discuss tag I added in the infobox since we were (and still are) trying to get consensus on whether RFK Jr. should be in the infobox. I tried to get them to revert their “4th revert” (which I now realize might have actually been their 5th revert), but they have not restored the article (see here). Prcc27 (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article. While the user stopped reverting after yesterday, they were rather enthusiastic about it, and this is an article in a contentious topic and their talk page shows they have been made aware of this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Could you please clarify if the user is allowed to edit the article’s talk page? I was surprised to see them still participating on that article’s RfC during their ban, but maybe the ban doesn’t apply to the article’s talk page..? Please advise. Prcc27 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I blocked them only from the article. This way they have to participate in talk page discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Oromo people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Abrasax123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1183897116 by Hzted6 (talk)"
2. 04:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1183896605 by Hzted6 (talk) That's not my responsibility. If you don't like the Arsi source, change it yourself."
3. 04:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1183895776 by Hzted6 (talk) Why are you undoing the first image? It has a back up source using your logic."
4. 04:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1183895551 by Hzted6 (talk) You just gave up huh. Now you know who is in the wrong."
5. 04:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1183895169 by Hzted6 (talk) Now you are just being childish."
6. 04:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1183894426 by Hzted6 (talk) Why change it? I did what was satisfactory according to you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has made over four reverts in less than fourty-eight hours. LucasKannou (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours By Ymblanter. (not an admin) Seawolf35 (talk - email) 20:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 92nd Street Y (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2607:F140:6000:8037:ACB9:52A7:8CBF:4D66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Typo"
2. 22:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Uncensored"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC) to 22:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
   1. 22:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Added recent info"
   2. 22:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Updated"
4. 22:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "Added important info you allow to be censored"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

5 reverts. Been reverted multiple times, was reverted on this exact edit a couple weeks ago by MaterialScientist. Is also threatening on their talk page to wreak havoc on the wiki as well. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd already blocked the /64 based on the threats on their talk page while you were putting together this report.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh haha, was in the process of correcting the report anyways because I messed something up, but thanks Ponyo, appreciated. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If it wasn't said here, IP /64 range was Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks by Ponyo. (not an admin)Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]
6. [9]
7. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:

• I do think it would be better if more people had made more of an effort to engage on the talk page. However, it does seem consensus is clearly against this user, and they nonetheless keep reverting long past the 3RR. --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

I discussed the problem on the Talk Page of the Hijab article. Various editors (apparently using various logins?) have reverted several of my edits without giving any explanation in the History Page. Many reverted several edits in one swoop of a single tool revert and never gave any explanation. Many reverted my edits within minutes and never gave an explanation and therefore, it appears THEY were engaging in Edit Warring. None addressed the conflict in the Talk Page.

Please review my edits of the Hijab article. I am seeking a impartial resolution of the ongoing conflict.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]

@QamarBurtuqali Since I am participating here in an uninvolved, administrative capacity, I have to look not at the merits of your material but on the overall actions of all editors at the article and talk page. I agree with AntiDionysius that there is a clear consensus against your additions to the article. You will have to discuss the changes at Talk:Hijab and get consensus for the changes before you change the article. Any attempts to add the material without doing so are edit warring, plain and simple. —C.Fred (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added these two sentences under Hijab/In Islamic Scripture/Quran in a detailed paragraph about "Islamic commentators generally agree ..." :

     "In particular, an early Muslim scholar noted that 7th century Arabian slave women 
     went around bare-breasted, inviting harassment. 
     [1] 
     During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked 
     [2]"

I added these two sentences to establish historical context of 7th century Arabia. Both sentences are constructive to the discussion. Both citations are appropriate, are historical (not religious) and the citations are correct.

Editor @Barbardo reverted both sentences because he asserted that 

"The second hadith diesn't mention women being harassed or about slave women and the first reference doesn't say the verse was revealed for slave women." Apparently, @Barbardo does not even understand the difference between a "verse" and a "hadith." Moreover, according to @Barbardo's Talk Page, he has a long history of reverts and has been accused of Edit Warring.

I cited an early Muslim scholar, to establish the historical fact that 7th century Arabian slave women went around bare-breasted. I cited a Hadith as a historical citation (not as a religious citation) to establish the historical fact that "During the pre-Islam era, Arabs used to perform Tawaf of the Ka`ba while naked."

I added these two sentences to support the topic sentence "The Islamic commentators generally agree this verse refers to sexual harassment of women of Medina." The paragraph is discussing the historical context of the Quran verse 33:59: "O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed." It is important to give historical evidence that the public nakedness of women in 7th Arabia seemed to invite harassment and early Muslims noted that public nakedness was contrary the advice of Qur'an 33:59.

I stated all of the above in the Hijab Talk Page. I welcome an unbiased review of my edit. I am seeking an unbiased resolution here.

QamarBurtuqali (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)QamarBurtuqali[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the 3RR after warning. Bishonen | tålk 15:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Trans woman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC) "Do not Undo edits without a strong rationale. If you need to, you can discuss your reasoning on the Talk page. "Disliking" an edit is not grounds for an Undo."
2. 23:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) "My edit is a direct quote from the DSM-V-TR. It is fundamental to the etiology of trans women and their sexuality, and thus important and relevant. The onus is on you to demonstrate that it somehow *doesn't* belong here."
3. 23:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC) "I have exhaustively discussed why this is the appropriate wording on the Talk page. This now amounts to ideological revision warring. Do not Undo edits without a strong rationale."
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) to 22:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
   1. 22:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) "This isn't a matter of "consensus", this is a matter of Wikipedia "default to original after No Consensus", so this Undo was inappropriate."
   2. 22:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC) "Scientific "consideration" implies evidence; it is not speculative. The DSM-5-TR is an authority that reflects scientific consensus. An "Undo" is only appropriate if scientific consensus changes."
5. 22:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC) "Apply the correct "default to original" wording of "person". See Talk: Frozen contentious statement in lead"
6. 17:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) "/* Sexuality */ Include predisposing factors per 2022 DSM revision"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Edit war notice issued by Funcrunch

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Trans woman#Frozen contentious statement in lead and Talk:Trans woman#That DSM-V-TR quote

Comments:

Though there is a pair of consecutive involved in diff 4, Lifetrance has breached 3RR by making at least 4 reverts (or 6, depending on how you want to count diffs 5 and 6) in the last few hours. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially blocked from Trans woman – for a period of 1 week by ScottishFinnishRadish. Marking as resolved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Subsequently indefinitely blocked sitewide.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page: V (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wukuendo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19], and also this warning in March

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See [20] and below

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

Comments:

• User has been POV pushing and repeatedly edit warring to maintain their preferred version of the article (which does not mention that the programming language is in beta). They have previously made a request on DRV which was closed for making too many conduct claims to be about the content itself. A p-block might be needed so more constructive discussions can be had on the talk page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from article. While Wukuendo has been even-tempered and civil in his tone, he has been tendentiously obstinate here, continuing to restore his preferred version even through long discussions currently consuming half the talk page and now on DRN, discussions in which nothing remotely close to consensus favoring his version has been reached, and during which he has chiefly argued whataboutism and abandoned any pretense of good faith with (as far as I can tell) baseless allegations of a conflict of interest against another editor in response to merely being asked if he had a relationship with anyone involved with the development of V (a question he has never responded to). In this case I consider the reporter’s suggestion of a partial block an excellent idea, although I am far from certain it will have the desired effect. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Castellón de la Plana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LucenseLugo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

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

Comments:

I'm LucenseLugo. This user keeps adding back unsourced content despite being warned on this page's talk page, on his own talk page and in his IP talk page. He doesn't have any desire to do anything as I have told him several times and I have also recommended him to read WP:GUIDELINES to refrain himself from adding unsourced content to Wikipedia.

In fact, the user Carlstak reverted him as well in the page Castellón de la Plana and this user didn't care at all as well. Now he says I'm edit warring because I have reverted his change were he was putting back unsourced text (see all the edit diffs he has shown) while I have recalled on his WP:DISRUPTIVE behavior on his talk page.

I take profit of this ANI to say this user seems a WP:SPA account based on his edits with this account as with several other accounts. The most recent ones being 109.205.143.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Danone17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which have a strong Valencian nationalism WP:BIAS POV, and they also edit similar if not the same pages. --LucenseLugo (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlstak revision was the stable version, which is why I never reverted his changes (you only need to look at the page history). So that claim ("this user didn't care at all as well") is just false. Your edit, on the contrary, was simply an undiscussed change.--Fromcs (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The stable version was the one made by the user "The Night Watch" in 4th November 2023: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castell%C3%B3n_de_la_Plana&oldid=1183499951 Carlstak actually reverted your edits (although not all of them) and your claims of "undiscussed change" are actually referring to some unsourced content you kept adding. I asked for a source 1 week ago and you didn't provide it, but just directly came to revert to include again and again that unsourced content.

When I have told you to stop putting unsourced content in both your talk page and Castellón's talk page, you couldn't care less and you kept re-reverting.

Also your 4th edit diff proof from above is an edit I made in 3th November. I did 3 reverts as of today but one was based on your 6th November edit and I told you that you should not put unsourced content as of WP:GUIDELINES which you completely ignored. So you reported me because you want to keep text that is unsourced. What sense does that make? LucenseLugo (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note, LucenseLugo also engaged in page move disruption today, reverting the move of the same editor Fromcs to move Montichelvo back from its long term stable title to their preferred title after their first move was reverted. The correct course of action would have been to open a formal WP:RM discussion to discuss the new title per WP:BOLDMOVE. Polyamorph (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here it was my bad because I didn't know I have to open a WP:RM if someone else undo the name change, although the page Montichelvo had less than 50 edits (without counting the ones from today) since it was created in 2007 and someone changed from Montichelvo to Montitxelvo (and in this case there is no clear English-prevailing name as it's just a small town between mountains) without any reason in 2011 despite being the official name Montichelvo/Montitxelvo since 2006 and just Montichelvo before 2006, so the other co-official name was completely wiped out for no reason. In fact, the user Fromcs even deleted the official name leaving it blank despite being bilingual and the official one.

  I recognise my mistake there because I didn't know 1 single change after another change is considered disruptive. But in the case of Castellón de la Plana (the reason I got reported here by the other user) is just because I have deleted unsourced content which that user was inserting without any proper source despite being asked and warned for a source over the past 7 days. LucenseLugo (talk) 21:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Aoidh (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Apple silicon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.84.203.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), CR1MS0NXV1P3R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]
5. [34]; not done by the same user but by CR1MS0NXV1P3R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), themselves admitting to do this in request of IP user
6. [35]
7. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: none, but have attempted to request further discussion here: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

This was a discussion started in August, without any further feedback I decided to move forward with the proposed changes. Have requested multiple times for IP to take it up on the talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 67.84.203.109: [39], CR1MS0NXV1P3R: [40]

Comments:

User has repeatedly refused to discuss changes made that were suggested back in August without disputes. And has reverted the page multiple times to an earlier state, including instances where reverts undid various other changes across the page. IP claims having been "working for years" and in another instance claims "countless hours and effort put on by me" on the article. Further claims include other editors and myself having to "keep everything as I wrote it" [41]. IP user also added a hostile comment on my personal talk page on an unrelated discussion [42].

IP user subsequently accepted the split up of the table in their edit summary for [43], but then continued to warn that they intend to revert these changes anyways in the edit summary of [44]. Changes were then reverted less than an hour later by CR1MS0NXV1P3R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account created within that hour.

I've included the aforementioned user as they are either being directed by the IP user in reverting these changes, or given their similar writing style in edit summaries, use of practically the same rhetoric and the fact that CR1MS0NXV1P3R was created earlier today on November 5th despite claiming that "our years of editing work has been compromised" strongly suggests that this is a sock of IP user or at the very least solely created to continue reverting these changes under IP user's directions.

Other users have appeared in agreement with the irrelevance of the removed content ([45]).

Declined What you’re alleging here seems even closer to sockpuppetry than edit warring. I would refer you to SPI. Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Rebecca (musical) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theatrefan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:41, 9 November 2023
2. 20:39, 9 November 2023
3. 11:03, 9 November 2023
4. 23:27, 8 November 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk:Rebecca_(musical)#Edit_warring

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

Comments:
Despite several requests in edit summaries and on their Talk page, the editor has continued to make the same changes that, among other things, remove well-cited information and add WP:PROMO/WP:UNDUE information. They have ignored all requests to discuss their views on the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]