Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive493

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
12345678910
11121314151617181920
21222324252627282930
31323334353637383940
41424344454647484950
51525354555657585960
61626364656667686970
71727374757677787980
81828384858687888990
919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110
111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130
131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150
151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170
171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190
191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210
211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230
231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250
251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270
271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290
291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310
311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330
331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346347348349350
351352353354355356357358359360
361362363364365366367368369370
371
Incidents (archives, search)
12345678910
11121314151617181920
21222324252627282930
31323334353637383940
41424344454647484950
51525354555657585960
61626364656667686970
71727374757677787980
81828384858687888990
919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110
111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130
131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150
151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170
171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190
191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210
211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230
231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250
251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270
271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290
291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310
311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330
331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346347348349350
351352353354355356357358359360
361362363364365366367368369370
371372373374375376377378379380
381382383384385386387388389390
391392393394395396397398399400
401402403404405406407408409410
411412413414415416417418419420
421422423424425426427428429430
431432433434435436437438439440
441442443444445446447448449450
451452453454455456457458459460
461462463464465466467468469470
471472473474475476477478479480
481482483484485486487488489490
491492493494495496497498499500
501502503504505506507508509510
511512513514515516517518519520
521522523524525526527528529530
531532533534535536537538539540
541542543544545546547548549550
551552553554555556557558559560
561562563564565566567568569570
571572573574575576577578579580
581582583584585586587588589590
591592593594595596597598599600
601602603604605606607608609610
611612613614615616617618619620
621622623624625626627628629630
631632633634635636637638639640
641642643644645646647648649650
651652653654655656657658659660
661662663664665666667668669670
671672673674675676677678679680
681682683684685686687688689690
691692693694695696697698699700
701702703704705706707708709710
711712713714715716717718719720
721722723724725726727728729730
731732733734735736737738739740
741742743744745746747748749750
751752753754755756757758759760
761762763764765766767768769770
771772773774775776777778779780
781782783784785786787788789790
791792793794795796797798799800
801802803804805806807808809810
811812813814815816817818819820
821822823824825826827828829830
831832833834835836837838839840
841842843844845846847848849850
851852853854855856857858859860
861862863864865866867868869870
871872873874875876877878879880
881882883884885886887888889890
891892893894895896897898899900
901902903904905906907908909910
911912913914915916917918919920
921922923924925926927928929930
931932933934935936937938939940
941942943944945946947948949950
951952953954955956957958959960
961962963964965966967968969970
971972973974975976977978979980
981982983984985986987988989990
9919929939949959969979989991000
1001100210031004100510061007100810091010
1011101210131014101510161017101810191020
1021102210231024102510261027102810291030
1031103210331034103510361037103810391040
1041104210431044104510461047104810491050
1051105210531054105510561057105810591060
1061106210631064106510661067106810691070
1071107210731074107510761077107810791080
1081108210831084108510861087108810891090
1091109210931094109510961097109810991100
1101110211031104110511061107110811091110
1111111211131114111511161117111811191120
1121112211231124112511261127112811291130
1131113211331134113511361137113811391140
1141114211431144114511461147114811491150
1151115211531154115511561157115811591160
1161116211631164116511661167116811691170
1171117211731174117511761177117811791180
11811182118311841185
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
12345678910
11121314151617181920
21222324252627282930
31323334353637383940
41424344454647484950
51525354555657585960
61626364656667686970
71727374757677787980
81828384858687888990
919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110
111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130
131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150
151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170
171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190
191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210
211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230
231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250
251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270
271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290
291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310
311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330
331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346347348349350
351352353354355356357358359360
361362363364365366367368369370
371372373374375376377378379380
381382383384385386387388389390
391392393394395396397398399400
401402403404405406407408409410
411412413414415416417418419420
421422423424425426427428429430
431432433434435436437438439440
441442443444445446447448449450
451452453454455456457458459460
461462463464465466467468469470
471472473474475476477478479480
481482483484485486487488489490
491492493494
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
12345678910
11121314151617181920
21222324252627282930
31323334353637383940
41424344454647484950
51525354555657585960
61626364656667686970
71727374757677787980
81828384858687888990
919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110
111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130
131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150
151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170
171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190
191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210
211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230
231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250
251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270
271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290
291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310
311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330
331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346347348349350
351352
Other links


User:Bosomba Amosah reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Declined - this report should be taken to WP:ANI)

Page: Akan language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bono dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bono people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Twi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bosomba Amosah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple comments on Bosomba's talk page, such as [2], now deleted; plus discussions at Talk:Twi etc

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [3]

Comments:

@Austronesier: and I have reverted Bosomba multiple times for the same edits on the same articles, for failing to respect his own sources, explaining that we need to follow those sources, and we've gotten thanks from other editors for doing so. Bosomba has conceded a few points, but it's like pulling teeth. He has provided a couple of nice sources in Dolphyne, and I now use those sources almost exclusively for my edits, and because of this I have abandoned some of my earlier positions, which were based on less reliable sources. Yet Bosomba only follows Dolphyne where she agrees with him, and ignores her where she doesn't. For example, he insists that Bono is a literary dialect of Akan even though Dolphyne says it isn't even written, and AFAICT he has provided no sources that the situation has changed since she wrote [which was decades ago; the situation could easily have changed]. He also insists that Bono is a single dialect; Dolphyne says that the 'Bono dialect' is actually a cluster of dialects, with as much internal diversity as other clusters of Akan dialects that have individual identities, that is, are considered to be separate dialects. Bosomba's argument is that since Dolphyne calls it the 'Bono dialect' before going on to explain that it's actually a dialect cluster, 'dialect' takes precedence and we need to follow that. I don't know if that's obstinacy or incompetence, but it's a refusal to follow his own sources. [There are other inaccuracies that he repeatedly restores with his reverts, but I don't know which are intentional.] The other major contention is that Twi is named afteer a Bono king named Twi. Bosomba has provided two sources. One does not say what he says it does, and he adamantly refuses to provide a quotation from it that would support his position. [In case we both missed where it supports him.] The other source he does quote from, but neither of us have access to it, and given Bosomba's apparent incompetence, we don't trust that he's quoting it accurately -- especially since he insists on keeping the first source despite it failing verification. There are other issues, such as the definition/scope of the name 'Twi', where he will only accept one definition, but I haven't had the time to delve into the sources for that.

— kwami (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Ecotto29200 reported by User:Jon698 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: 1872 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1876 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1852 United States presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Ecotto29200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

  • Ecotto29200 has been making edits to the infobox of multiple presidential election pages. Multiple users have reverted their edits as shown in 1, 2, 3, 4, and others. They have also made inappropriate edit summaries calling other users dumb and idiots.
User notified here Jon698 (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I have blocked Ecotto29200 for harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Jamessharison 3RR violation (Result: Declined as malformed)

@Jamessharison has broken WP:3RR, despite a warning on their talk page and a request to take it to talk via edit summary.

Reverts 1, 2, and 3.

The user's only contributions since their account was created yesterday have been to revert the same text. This IP user and this 9-day-old account also made the same edits in the last week, so I'm not sure if these are the same user, but it seems an unusual hill to die on for three completely unrelated people. Lewisguile (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

User notified here. Lewisguile (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Melody Concerto reported by User:2A00:23C8:D30D:7C00:64ED:3C90:5AB4:BE56 (Result: No violation)

Page: Sima Kotecha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Melody Concerto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [5]
  2. [6]
  3. [7]



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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments:

A few days ago, I happened to read Sima Kotecha, and found so many grammar errors that the article was almost unreadable. I fixed them all. Searching in the article's history, they had all been introduced by one now-banned editor in a likely act of vandalism.

For no apparent reason, the editor I am reporting has repeatedly restored all the errors I fixed to the article. They have given no explanation for their actions in edit summaries, and have simply deleted my posts when I asked them why. They have not been content to simply revert my edits; they have also sought to get the article protected with a shockingly dishonest report ([17]), and unfortunately an administrator obliged. So, the article is once again in a shocking and unreadable state. I suggest that significant action needs to be taken against the user I am reporting for their totally pointless edit warring, deliberate harm to the article's quality, and bad faith abuse of Wikipedia tools and processes. 2A00:23C8:D30D:7C00:64ED:3C90:5AB4:BE56 (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is not semi-protected; it's pending changes protected. As I described above, that is thanks to a shockingly dishonest report by this user, whose edit warring you are apparently condoning. 2A00:23C8:D30D:7C00:64ED:3C90:5AB4:BE56 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
The IP is right about the protection level. The IP is also now blocked (/64 range) as WP:BKFIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

User:ZlatanSweden10 reported by User:Stockenboi (Result: No violation)

Page: Social Democratic Party of Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZlatanSweden10 (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]



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: [23]

Comments: Wants to remove an ideology which is verified by reliable sources. Serial edit warring despite being reverted by different users multiple times (see history). Stockenboi (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

User:FoundSquare reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: National Socialist Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 23:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC) "removed "carrying offensive weapons" - claim not supported by police statements and/or multiple sources"
  2. 10:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1278249433 by GraziePrego (talk) - Source is innacurate as demonstrated in Talk"
  3. 03:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1278211052 by TarnishedPath (talk) - source cited is factually incorrect"
  4. 02:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC) "the article stating that they were charged with carrying offensive weapons is incorrect. Replaced with accurate article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 11:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on National Socialist Network."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 12:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Removing "carrying offensive weapons" */ Reply"

Comments:

The editor is a WP:SPA who is clearly here to engage in WP:ADVOCACY. A review of their contribution history indicates that all of their edits, away from their talk, are to do with National Socialist Network, it's leader Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) or a section of text that they were trying to insert into Telegram (software) about the National Socialist Network. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Helpinghandsinhands reported by User:Paper9oll (Result: Blocked indef as NOTHERE)

Page: Illit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helpinghandsinhands (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
  5. Diff
  6. Diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff

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

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

Comments:
Persistent addition of WP:NOTPROMO, non-WP:NPOV, non-WP:MOS, non-WP:RS materials for 5 times straight despite multiple editors reverted such materials. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 09:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely As NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

User:206.198.189.134 reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: Blocked 24 hours )

Page: Alexander Kozhevnikov (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 206.198.189.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC) to 08:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 08:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC) "no one else is using the talk page, nor will anyone give me a reason why they are defending having this crap on the site ... how many times have i explained mtself"
    2. 08:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC) "there is nothing on the talk page, who do i talk to, myself"
  2. 08:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC) "why why why why why and why ... please, someone, give me one good reason this crap should be on wikipedia, and i'm ok, just one"
  3. 07:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC) "please, give me one good reason why this utter filth, to quote directly from the article, should be on wikipedia ... it is lies, anti LGBTQ, prejudiced against several nationalities, and if you bother to check, the links are fake"
  4. 07:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC) "what the heck, can someone give me a good reason why my edit is wrong, it massively improves the article by cleaning it up and removing OFFENSIVE material ... did you read it?"
  5. 06:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC) "dude, i explained myself, the content is propaganda and lies ... did you read it? it is offensive and totally untrue, it is a russian using wikipedia to criticize and whine about rightful sanctions"
  6. 06:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC) "what the heck ... conflict of interest? i am the person himself? no way, i'm just a guy in canada who knows unadulterated propaganda bullsh*t when i see it .. the stuff about russian hockey players are real men, and the french iihf president is not? what utter crap, all because russia was rightly kicked out of international hockey because of their horrific invasion of another innocent country"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 05:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC) to 05:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 05:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC) "what the heck that VIEWS section was complete propaganda, with him protesting the correct and right suspension of russia from international hockey because of the invasion of ukraine, who let this CRAP be posted?"
    2. 05:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 05:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    4. 05:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    5. 05:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 08:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alexander Kozhevnikov (ice hockey)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

User:MM3987 reported by User:Mellk (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Palestinian Arabic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MM3987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28]
  5. [29]
  6. [30]
  7. [31]
  8. [32]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [34]

Comments:
Clear case of WP:NOTHERE.[35] Mellk (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Historymam reported by User:Technopat (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: 1919 British race riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments: This user is simultaneously edit-warring on at least three articles, inclusing the one indicated in this report. --Technopat (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Blocked – for a period of one week. Technopat, it is your responsibility to include diffs in all reports here. Rather than marking this as malformed, I blocked because it was obvious. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Pmehtpli reported by User:Codename AD (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Chloë Annett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 13:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1278608159 by Opolito (talk)"
  2. 13:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1278605763 by Opolito (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Reverted also as User:49.156.94.160. [37] and [38] Codename AD talk 14:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

User:186.209.204.159 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Assassin's Creed II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 186.209.204.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Then do the same as all other Assassin's Creed"
  2. 10:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "In which country does Assassin's Creed II take place? Oh yeah... YOU ARROGANT"
  3. 10:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  4. 10:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  5. 17:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  6. 17:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 11:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Assassin's Creed II."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

IP made personal attacks and continued edit warring after warning. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. A pattern of reverting categories on articles that relate to Assassin's Creed. This may be the same user as 186.209.202.0 (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Alainprost2 reported by User:Darth Stabro (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Pope Benedict XVI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Alainprost2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 04:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1278556535 by CycloneYoris (talk)"
  2. 04:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1278551253 by Darth Stabro (talk)"
  3. 01:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Review"
  4. 23:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Warned after third revert on his talk page, and afterwards did a fourth revert ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

User:JohnAdams1800 reported by User:Berchanhimez (Result: Pblocked for two week)

Page: Republican Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JohnAdams1800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 23:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "What are non-consensual edits? I will take this to arbitration if necessary. Undid revision 1278682162 by GlowstoneUnknown (talk)"
  2. 23:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1278677581 by GlowstoneUnknown (talk)"
  3. 14:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Europe, Russia and Ukraine */ This isn't a trivial matter or violating NPOV--Trump is siding with Putin's illegal invasion over Ukraine."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 02:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Discussion: Can we call the Republican Party's foreign policy as Russophilia and opposed to Ukraine? */ no"
  2. 02:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Discussion: Can we call the Republican Party's foreign policy as Russophilia and opposed to Ukraine? */ Reply"
  3. 23:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Discussion: Can we call the Republican Party's foreign policy as Russophilia and opposed to Ukraine? */ cmt"
  4. 00:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Discussion: Can we call the Republican Party's foreign policy as Russophilia and opposed to Ukraine? */ Reply"

Comments:

Also please see the first, and second edits that the user made attempting to add the term "russophilia" to the article and change "is divided on" to "is opposed to" Ukraine aid. This user themselves started a talk page thread asking if the changes could be made (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Discussion: Can we call the Republican Party's foreign policy as Russophilia and opposed to Ukraine?) but continues to make the change.

There are multiple users who have responded to that talk page section with reservations or outright opposition to the changes being proposed, including (courtesy pings) User:The Four Deuces, User:GlowstoneUnknown, User:GoodDay, User:Simonm223, User:Springee, and myself. The level at which there has been opposition ranges from insufficient sourcing, to generally "problematic", to outright opposition. By my count, there is only one user that supports the desired edits without reservation (courtesy ping), User:HiLo48, and one or two others who have expressed they may be okay with the edits but are undecided at the time. The user reported has now claimed that it's a "hill [they're] willing to (figuratively) die on", which to me is a clear indication that they intend to continue to edit war if necessary.

Though by my count they are only at 2 reverts in the last 24 hours (assuming you count the middle diff as a re-addition), they are at a total of 5 attempts in the past few days to try and change the article to say what they want even over significant opposition/reservation on the talk page. I'm not sure if this is better suited for WP:AE as it is a contentious topic (WP:CTOP/AP), but I believe some action needs taken. This user appears to understand that edit warring is prohibited and is a long time editor, who has been previously made aware of this topic being a contentious topic - which make me think a warning for this instance would not be helpful. If it is thought AE is better, please advise and I will file there instead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not opposed to inclusion if sufficient sources can be found but, as things stand, no such sources have been found. And I looked a little bit myself. Simonm223 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Berchanhimez that JohnAdams' actions are inappropriate, their decision to open a discussion page thread and, when faced with opposition to their edits (at least in the form they were being implemented), to reinstate their changes non-consensually, isn't productive and could be described as disruptive. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Please read my response below. It appears clear to me that the Republican Party is supporting Vladimir Putin's war of aggression that violated international law, and are espousing outright false narratives about the war.
Link: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump#Blame for start of Russo-Ukrainian War JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
This isn't the forum for a Wikpedia content dispute to be discussed, this is about your conduct as an editor and the actions you took in editing Republican Party (United States). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 00:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm the user in question. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a contentious, extended-confirmation protected topic. This issue is extremely serious and it appears objectively clear to me that Trump and the Republican Party are engaged in historical negationism and espousing Russian disinformation about the invasion. This isn't about political views on a contentious issue like say abortion, but about Trump and Republicans espousing outright lies about what occurred.

I don't know what to do. I can't even get JohnAdams1800 to sign their posts correctly. Is that an example of WP:IDHT?, it's frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Jason19980412 reported by User:GSK (Result: LTA blocked)

Page: Nintendo Switch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jason19980412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 02:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC) "Don't create unnecessary categories!"
  2. 18:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 18:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC) to 18:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 18:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 18:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nintendo Switch."
  2. 18:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Category:Hybrid video game consoles."
  3. 18:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Category:Hybrid video game consoles."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

User:Jodhpur The Capital of Marwar reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

User being reported: Jodhpur The Capital of Marwar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 19:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC) to 19:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 19:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Etymology */Churu and sikar is not undermarwar region, churu, sikar is under sekhawati region not marwar, marwarand sekhwati are separated separated region"
    3. 19:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
  2. 18:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  4. 18:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC) to 13:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 13:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 13:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Notable people */"
  6. 05:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  7. [39] - This IP edit on 09:49, 25 February 2025 might be the same person

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Addition of unsourced content/personal analysis and removal of longstanding sourced content. Also note WP:UNCIVIL in these replies. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:70a0:2160:6d50:d690:9ab:ffe3 reported by User:Departure– (Result: Blocked 2 weeks as a sock)

Page: 2005 Birmingham tornado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1700:70a0:2160:6d50:d690:9ab:ffe3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:diff/1273292096

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/1278803644 - first change to wind speed / rating, reverted
  2. Special:Diff/1278804685 - second change to wind speed / rating, also reverted
  3. Special:Diff/1278804685 - not a revert for the purposes of edit warring but this is clearly unencyclopedic
  4. Special:Diff/1278805206 - manual revert of wind speed / rating, itself reverted
  5. Special:Diff/1278805784 - changing wind speed - not quite in the same manner but a major change nonetheless, after this the user was warned for edit warring..
  6. Special:Diff/1278809018 (current revision) - following a revert, another change to wind speed and adding unencyclopedic unsourced prose



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1278805617

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1278809018 - edit summary invitation to discuss the dispute on the talk page instead of further edit warring, no correspondence there or elsewhere

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1278808862

Comments:
There was a previous edit war on this page that involved LTA and a space-regular being blocked. The user's edits were reverted by three users, including EF5 and Joyous! Departure– (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  1. A note that their behavior roughly aligns with Luffaloaf, which I've brought up on @WeatherWriter:'s talk page. — EF5 19:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
    For context, Luffaloaf was the LTA sockpuppet that participated in the previous edit war, before being blocked. If LTA is confirmed, the page (and Tornadoes of 2005) should be protected as well. Departure– (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of two weeks The /64, as a Dcasey98/Luffaloaf sock. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Dietricht reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: 2025 Ecuadorian general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 02:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC) to 02:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 02:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 02:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 02:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    4. 02:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  2. 02:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. 01:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  4. 00:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 02:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 02:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 02:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    4. 02:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]
  4. [43]
  5. [44]
  6. [45]

Comments:

Crossposting borgenland's ANI complaint. Insanityclown1 (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Noting that attempts to resolve on article have produced troll replies from user in question as seen in the revisions submitted. Borgenland (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing, trolling and WP:IDNHT in 2025 Ecuadorian general election. Borgenland (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
User also made some minor changes to further bludgeon and copy-edit entries made as part of edit warring. Borgenland (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
To add, their edit warring began a few days prior, when I trimmed stuff on grounds of quality issues [46]. Since then and until this report was filed, they had been gradually restoring their edits without consensus [47] [48] and garnishing things on the side apart from these chunky diffs. Borgenland (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Brendonmotom reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: West Tripura district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 14:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279097018 by Fylindfotberserk (talk) to add proper information after damage by a random person"
  2. 14:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279096938 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
  3. 14:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279096430 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
  4. 14:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 07:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC) to 07:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 07:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 07:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 07:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 14:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dhalai district."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Page: Dhalai district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  1. [49] "Adding the native name. One random guy is undoing it without any ground knowledge of Tripura."
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]

Comments:

Added unsourced name and keeps edit warring about it. The person is doing it in other articles as well. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Added another article in which the person is adding unsourced names. The person has been warned multiple times over the years for their disruptive edits. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Adding more diffs and edit summaries. Edit summaries like these - [53] [54] suggest WP:OWNERSHIP of the articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Leechjoel9 reported by User:Socialwave597 (Result: Stale; will leave CTOPS alert on user's talk)

Page: Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [56]
  2. [57]
  3. [58]
  4. [59]
  5. [60]
  6. [61]



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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [64]

Comments:
User keeps reverting my edits with little to no explanation. In the last edit summary, the user accuses me of being a "sockpuppet" (without proof of course), I've had previous encounters with this user that led to a block. I think his block record shows he has a history of WP:OWNERSHIP on multiple Eritrean related articles. Socialwave597 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Or to ArbCom enforcement, since this is within a contentious topic area (WP:CT/HORN); I will leave an alert on their talk page. As it is this is stale, with no edits in three days. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

User:MALLA1997 reported by User:Garudam (Result: Already blocked indef)

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

User being reported: MALLA1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 20:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC) to 20:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 20:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  2. 20:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. 20:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 18:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC) to 18:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 18:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 19:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Garuda."
  2. 20:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Promoting caste cruft, WP:NOTHERE. – Garuda Talk! 20:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Already blocked indefinitely by Widr Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

User:BerwickKent reported by User:LaffyTaffer (Result: Stale, as noted)

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

Previous version reverted to: Having difficulty locating the original stable version due to this edit war being slow motion and lasting for months

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [65]
  2. [66]
  3. [67]
  4. [68]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [71]

Comments:

This report is already stale as the last edit by BerwickKent was made on Feb 4. I hadn't noticed until today as Ramgoolam's article was no longer on my watch list. However, I said in this ANI thread that I'd be reporting if the slow motion edit war started back up. User:Nikhilrealm was previously involved in this edit war as well, but waited for over a week after contacting BK on the talk page before reverting the page. I have notified both editors of this report, though I'm keeping BerwickKent as the focus.Taffer😊💬(she/they) 20:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Declined Stale as noted. Finding the original stable version is not what we do here. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel Case I may have misunderstood what was necessary for "Previous version reverted to". Would this version when you protected the page have been considered the last stable version? I didn't include a particular diff since the edit warring behavior dates all the way back to around October, which would have also removed months of constructive edits. Taffer😊💬(she/they) 22:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
And apologies for keeping a declined report going, I just have a feeling I'll need to make another report in the future over this(less stale next time since the article is now on my watch list for the next year) Taffer😊💬(she/they) 22:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Hlogoogle reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Pblocked from article)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* top */reverted"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 08:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC) to 10:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 08:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Etymology */ deletion code"
    2. 09:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* top */added some more information with referance"
    3. 09:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* physical Structure */ added more information with referance"
    4. 10:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* top */move page"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 06:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC) to 07:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 06:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* History */ stop using false information and source related to dhadhor. darhore is a different clan"
    2. 07:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Etymology */ added some more information with referance"
    3. 07:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Racial description */ reverted"
    4. 07:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Culture */ added true information with source"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 01:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC) to 01:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 01:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Racial description */ added true information with survey report."
    2. 01:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Culture */ remove wrong information.

those source are not related to Dhadhor sub-caste."

  1. 01:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Racial description */ added true information related to dhadhor or dadhor with source"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 17:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC) to 18:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 17:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Racial description */ added true information related to dhanhor or dhador"
    2. 18:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Culture */ gwala and dadhor are two different caste.added with sourse gwala culture. and remove false information"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 17:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC) to 17:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 17:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Racial description */ dhadhor is also known as dharhor. Lotan Ram Nishad has described Dhadhor Yadav as fair skin tone. I'm addded two referance."
    2. 17:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "/* top */dhador or danhor name is correct it is metioned in some books."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 10:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC) to 11:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 10:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Culture */ added some more information with referance"
    2. 11:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Racial description */ added some more information with referance"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:

Addition of WP:OR and POV-push. They have been reverted and warned by multiple users and asked to seek WP:CONSENSUS in the talk page. Pinging @Jessicapierce, Ekdalian, and Almakhhdum:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Partial blocked from the article for a year. Regardless of the quality of the additions, when you're edit warring against five other people you would think that might make you stop and think. But, apparently not. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Nahraf Moha reported by User:Jfire (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Afar Triangle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 04:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Environment */ The Hadu tribe is one of several prominent clans within the Afar ethnic group, primarily residing in the northeastern regions of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti."
  2. 03:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Environment */ The Hadu tribe is one of several prominent clans within the Afar ethnic group, primarily residing in the northeastern regions of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti."
  3. 03:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279195887 by Jfire (talk)"
  4. 02:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "the Hadu tribe is an integral part of the Afar ethnic group, contributing to the rich tapestry of cultures in East Africa. Their traditions, language, and way of life reflect their deep connection to the land and their resilience in adapting to changing circumstances."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 02:32, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Using a large language model on Afar Triangle."
  2. 03:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Afar Triangle."
  3. 03:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Afar Triangle."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 03:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Hadu Tribe */ new section"

Comments:

User is inserting unsourced, AI generated content, continuing behavior from February on other articles. No response to repeated attempts to engage on talk pages. Jfire (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Similar behavior, involving the same content, observed in the article Afar language:
1. 03:10, 7 March 2025 "the Hadu tribe is an integral part of the Afar ethnic group, contributing to the rich tapestry of cultures in East Africa. Their traditions, language, and way of life reflect their deep connection to the land and their resilience in adapting to changing circumstances."
2. 07:22, 7 March 2025 "Within the Afar ethnic group, the "Hadu" tribe is one of several notable clans that are mostly found in the northeastern parts of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti. The nomadic lifestyle and rich cultural legacy of the Afar people are influenced by the arid" LandLing 08:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Indefinitely blocked Nothing useful has come of this account's edits; nothing useful looks likely either. Add that to the edit-warring, lack of communication and use of LLMs, you get an indefinite block. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

User:74.56.74.63 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Paul Barbeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 74.56.74.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 20:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279478039 by MrOllie (talk)"
  2. 20:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279477459 by MrOllie (talk)"
  3. 20:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279451205 by MrOllie (talk)"
  4. 13:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC) "Added a source from Deadline article proving role as Executive Producer."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 20:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 20:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC) on User talk:74.56.74.63 "/* March 2023 */"

Comments:

Self promotional edit warring by COI editor, trying to turn article into a resume. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This is also evasion of the block they received as User:PressFilmLaInsider. MrOllie (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

User:170.62.100.225 reported by User:Technopat (Result: Blocked)

Page: Homeland Party (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 170.62.100.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279589008 by Technopat (talk) Revert slander/defamation edit warring - talk on talk page"
  2. 11:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279588534 by Technopat (talk) Unexplained revert - not edit warring (this is my first edit)"
  3. 11:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "Neutral point of view, poor quality sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 11:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
  2. 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "Replied."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

User:71.35.19.155 reported by User:Garudam (Result: Blocked one month)

Page: Joe Flaherty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.35.19.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. 19:41, 10 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  4. 19:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 19:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
  2. 19:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Joe Flaherty."
  3. 19:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Joe Flaherty."
  4. 19:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Joe Flaherty."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Not adhering to the guidelines. – Garuda Talk! 19:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This IP (or IP range) should be blocked quickly and for a long time, it's a case of WP:LTA and block evasion. Earlier IPs: 184.98.192.0/18 (blocked for 3 months) and 71.35.8.0/21 (blocked for 6 months). Disruptive edits, edit-warring, nonresponsive. It's probably best to block 71.35.19.0/24, since that range includes 71.35.19.114, which has recently been blocked for a week. (I already reported this at WP:AIV an hour ago, but there's a backlog, might take a while.) — Chrisahn (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all these details. I blocked the /24 range for one month. I know the others are blocked for longer but before that this range hadn't edited since 2019.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)


User:TwinBoo reported by User:Joy (Result: Page protected)

Page: Italy–Libya relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TwinBoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: first disputed addition

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [72]
  2. [73]
  3. [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Italy–Libya relations#History

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

Comments:
Can someone else please explain to this new-ish user how the editorial process normally works, because it seems I'm not getting through - even after I explained what needs to be done two months ago, they just came back and re-inserted the blob of obviously disputed material back in without explanation. --Joy (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

If you ask me, I'd say terming this spat an 'edit war' is a little extreme. The second revert you've referenced isn't really just a revert as I had put in sources like you had suggested, only for that to be reverted too.
Along with that, the third revert referenced was done several months after the other two and is inline with WP:DISENGAGE, which states: "you'll probably be able to return and carry on editing an article when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might have moved on."
Work had been put into my edit and the events on the article hardly warrant a report, so I hope whoever's reviewing will be able to factor in my side of the story. --𝚃𝚠𝚒𝚗𝙱𝚘𝚘 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello TwinBoo, [76] flies against the spirit of the quoted policy section as it is a verbatim revert instead of addressing the current state of the talk page discussion, to which the previous edit referred and which had no further reply. Disengaging instead of continuing to discuss is fine. Addressing others' concerns with a modified edit after a while could have been fine, but that chance is now lost and I'd consider it edit warring if you restore any of it without having found a consensus with Joy or others on the talk page. There are two policy-compliant options:
  • Finding a consensus ...
    • about the needed sources (WP:BURDEN) if the verifiability is disputed
    • and whether the material should be included (WP:ONUS) if the verifiability isn't disputed anymore
  • Disengaging because the discussion/topic isn't worth the effort or for whichever reason, all of which are valid as long as you return to point 1, "finding a consensus", if you decide to return.
Reverting isn't an option. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Pipo1955 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)

Page: Christopher Columbus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pipo1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 15:36, 24 January 2025 Anachronism. Reference states that Italian nationality did not existOriginal edit
  2. 15:49, 24 January 2025 See Talk: Columbus never spoke or wrote in Italian
  3. 19:35, 24 January 2025 I link "Italian" to "Italian peninsula", in the sense given by the current consensus
  4. 14:39, 25 January 2025 inconsistency between the reference Undid revision 1271646806 by Strebe (talk)
  5. 04:11, 26 January 2025 link "Italian" to "Italian peninsula" to address the inconsistency between the reference. See talk
  6. 11:57, 20 February 2025 See talk: Consensus
  7. 10:12, 21 February 2025 Reverting. The user is already aware of the existing consensus and the ongoing discussion.
  8. 19:10, 21 February 2025 See: Talk:Christopher_Columbus#Columbus_never_spoke_or_wrote_in_Italian
  9. 16:56, 1 March 2025 The edition before the changes did not include a link. Restoring it.
  10. 04:13, 2 March 2025 That is not what the reference says. See talk
  11. 07:03, 9 March 2025 There is no consensus to add the link Italians. See talk.
  12. 08:47, 9 March 2025 see talk
  13. 14:04, 10 March 2025 See talk. There is no consensus to add the link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: March 2025

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Columbus may have been a dick, but he was not a peninsula

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: an3 notice.


Comments:

Long-running edit war and bludgeoning. Many editors involved in reverting inappropriate re-edits. Never quite got to 3RR in a single day. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Tejunavi reported by User:Aviationwikiflight (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Kempegowda International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 13:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "Look man, I don't want to fight. Both you and I know that these flights do not exist, as you mentioned in your talk page. You mentioned the word 'assume' and claimed that these flights do not exist due to a bug on Akasa's webpage. In Wikipedia, we simply cannot assume facts. As mentioned fore kindly provide a up to date source. Undid revision 1279764981 by Aviationwikiflight (talk)"
  2. 12:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "Up to date citation needed for both route. As of right now the route is not operational"
  3. 03:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "At least I mentioned that it needs citation Undid revision 1279709168 by Aviationwikiflight (talk)"
  4. 03:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "Good job, you know how to count. But please do provide a valid source before undoing. Thanks :) Undid revision 1279708787 by Ivebeenhacked (talk)"
  5. 02:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "Stop vandalizing this page. Provide a source before you do so Undid revision 1279708301 by Aviationwikiflight (talk)"
  6. 02:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "Kindly do not vandalize this page. I had started multiple attempts to resolve this issue, but no one is willing to cooperate, which is not my fault., Akasa Air's website confirms that these two routes are being operated. If you believe that I am at the wrong, feel free to provide a valid and up to date source. Thanks :) Undid revision 1279706956 by Ivebeenhacked (talk)"
  7. 02:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "These two flights do not exist. Booking engine of Akasa Air confirms that these flights do not operate Undid revision 1279702893 by Ivebeenhacked (talk)"
  8. 01:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1279692787 by Aviationwikiflight (talk)"
  9. 16:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "Plz check the talk page. Also for your reference the Goa mopa flight is a connecting flight in BOM with both of them have two different flight numbers. On the other hand, the Gwalior flight dose not even show up on the booking website Undid revision 1279624844 by Aviationwikiflight (talk)"
  10. 16:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "Please provide a valid and updated website that this operation is still being operated, their website shows that they don't have bookings open for these 2 routes. I don't know what more you want. Stop being so hasty Undid revision 1279615743 by The Banner (talk)"
  11. 14:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "I do not need to show any sources to confirm this, the two sources that are already there, seem to be old and therefore unreliable. Pls read WP:INACCURATE WP:IAI and WP:REMOVAL. Instead, you are free to provide a reliable source that proves that these two routes are still under operation by Akasa. :) Undid revision 1279546891 by Aviationwikiflight (talk)"
  12. 03:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "Kindly check again as both destinations are not served by Akasa air anymore. Their booking engine confirms this Undid revision 1279373480 by The Banner (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 17:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "/* March 2025 */Edit war notice"
  2. 05:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Kempegowda International Airport */new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 16:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Akasa Air operations to Gwalior and Goa */ Reply"
  2. See User talk:Aviationwikiflight § BLR Alaska Air routes

Comments:

Dispute regarding whether two flight routes are still active. Despite the user being warned and reverted multiple times, they have kept reverting despite no consensus in favour of their edits. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The reported user in question has now reverted for a sixth time a reversion to their reversion. They have also attempted to remove this report by blanking this section.[78] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: The guy has reverted an edit for the seventh time. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I reverted it as vandalism and we’re now sitting at eight reverts.[79] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Another update: We're on nine reverts. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Again another update: We're at 10 reverts. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Might as well wait for an admin to intervene rather than waste our time reverting their edits. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
We’re now at 11 reverts. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
The number just increased to 12 reverts. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2601:188:C580:78D0:8A1:F63:F4DE:8161 reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: Blocked one month)

Page: Demoulas family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2601:188:C580:78D0:8A1:F63:F4DE:8161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 15:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Arthur T. Demoulas */Restored edit that hiroloveswords removed"
  2. 15:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "Restored changed"
  3. 15:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Arthur T. Demoulas */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 15:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Introducing factual errors on Demoulas family."
  2. 15:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2601:188:C580:78D0:8A1:F63:F4DE:8161."
  4. 15:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Edit warring and repeated introduction of factual errors. Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Tony Mejia reported by User:162 etc. (Result: Blocked from article 72 hours)

Page: Cam'ron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tony Mejia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [81]
  2. [82]
  3. [83]
  4. [84]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [87]

Comments:
User persists in changing Cameron Giles' birthname in the Cam'ron article, despite citing no sources at all, and being reverted on several occasions. No response on talk page. 162 etc. (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I support this user being at least blocked from editing that page. Also, given how many of their edits to other pages have been reverted I think they're clearly WP:NOTHERE. For example, they deleted the entire external links section and all the categories from the Texas Attorney General page (diff here) and the references section (diff here). G o m m e h 17:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

User:70.64.132.13 reported by User:Technopat (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Anti-Canadian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 70.64.132.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 07:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking."
  2. 07:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing that article. If the IP evades the block and continues disruption, drop me a note and I'll semi protect the page for much longer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Cdvbfgb reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 72 hours )

Page: University of California, Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cdvbfgb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [89]
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
  4. [92]
  5. [93]



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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [96]

Comments:

Please note that Cdvbfgb is a new editor who is only editing this article, is editing with a very clear POV (to portray the University of California, Davis in a negative light), and is edit warring with at least four different editors. ElKevbo (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from editing the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Mael700 reported by User:Alachuckthebuck (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Shapur II's Arab campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mael700 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 20:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC) to 20:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 20:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC) "Arab nationalist trying to rewrite history. Can’t even speak proper English"
    2. 20:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 18:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC) to 18:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 18:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

See user talk for additional warnings. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Indefinitely blocked. This complaint should have been brought to WP:ANI. Certainly there was not an edit-warring violation (the user reverted twice), but I blocked for disruption. See the block log for details.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

User:86.160.247.245 reported by User:Iiii I I I (Result: Blocked from articles for 72 hours)

Pages:

User being reported: 86.160.247.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1279149070 (March 6, 2025)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:TVR#TVR's status since 2013

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1279559659 (March 9, 2025)

Comments:
At the advice of S0091, I'm reporting User:86.160.247.245 here for edit warring on both TVR and TVR Griffith. The most recent one (Special:Diff/1279224488) came after requests from me not to remove sourced information, and talk page warnings from two other users.

I don't know if this is needed here, but to summarize the content dispute: TVR is a car manufacturer that went defunct in 2013, and was then bought and revived with plans to create a new version of the TVR Griffith. The IP apparently does not believe this is relevant to the articles and has removed mention of the revival from both pages. --Iiii I I I (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It was not revived at all. There were and are no plans to create a new Griffith. There was only an unfinished show car, built eight years ago by Gordon Murray Automotive, which Les Edgar used to con deposit-payers and the Welsh Government out of a lot of money. No R&D was ever done, the show car was never road-registered, not one single development car was ever built, and no customer car was ever delivered. The factory has been repossessed by the Welsh Government, and the premises to which the various TVR companies are still registered at Companies House is no longer owned by Les Edgar either, having been sold last year. TVR is deader than John Cleese's parrot! 86.160.247.245 (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
A failed revival is still worthy of mention, especially when covered by multiple reliable sources. IP seems likely to continue edit warring and is WP:NOTHERE. Iiii I I I (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
The failed revival is still mentioned in the main TVR article. I didn't remove any content from that. All I removed was the "second generation" from the Griffith article, which gave the false impression (based on poorly sourced information) that there ever was a second-gen Griffith on the road. Which there wasn't. The fact is that TVR died in 2006 (not 2013) and isn't coming back. It's gone for good. If the failed revival really merits an article of its own, then start one for the separate company Les Edgar created, or for the 2018 Griffith concept car. It does not belong on the main Griffith article. 86.160.247.245 (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the articles. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
There is no case for blocking me. My edits remain in situ and remain accurate. Other editors have reviewed my edits and left them in place. 86.160.247.245 (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
So? You kept reverting when you were asked to discuss. Edit warring is not about whose edits are right (save in some BLP situations) but who edits responsibly and with respect for others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Whirlingmerc reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected)

Page: Ark of the Covenant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whirlingmerc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • March 10, 15:21. [98] Texas IP inserts extensive non-neutral analysis with an incoherent sweeping conclusion. Not a revert.
  1. March 10, 16:20. [99] Texas IP reverts to preferred version.
  2. March 10, 16:53. [100] Whirlingmerc reverts to Texas IP version.
  3. March 10, 20:52. [101] Whirlingmerc reverts to preferred version, then expands on it 20 hours later.
  4. March 11, 21:31. [102] Whirlingmerc reverts to preferred version.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [105]

Comments:
Whirlingmerc has been edit-warring at various biblical topics, including logged-out activity through the Texas IP Special:Contributions/47.187.234.103 and the Texas IP range Special:Contributions/2603:8080:AE00:1615:0:0:0:0/64. This person has difficulty communicating clearly, and their writing is incoherent. The issues that concern them appear trivial to others. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we can temporarily block the username from article space, and block the Texas IPs. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Page protected for three days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talkcontribs) 03:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Good news though: the disputants are already discussing the dispute at the article's talk page, here as well as in another thread. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Bens dream reported by User:Chrisahn (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: List of vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bens dream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Old revision of List of vegans

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/1280183679
  2. Special:Diff/1280256488
  3. Special:Diff/1280257155
  4. Special:Diff/1280259232
  5. Special:Diff/1280266299 Note the edit summary: "I have more than enough time to keep doing this."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1280263728

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1280264743

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1280268423

Comments:

Multiple editors have asked the user to stop edit-warring. The user has been blocked before. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Shahzar.okayrelax reported by User:Technopat (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Ted Arcidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 16:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC) to 16:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 16:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280269539 by Technopat (talk)"
    2. 16:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Done in official powerlifting full meets: */"
  2. 11:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 11:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC) to 11:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 11:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 11:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Done in official powerlifting full meets: */"
  4. 10:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Professional wrestling career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 10:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Editing tests on Ted Arcidi."
  2. 10:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Editing tests."
  3. 11:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism."
  4. 11:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

User:Theonewithreason reported by User:SigillumVert (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

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

Comments:
User has repeatedly inserted information about Livno being a part of medieval Serbia despite that being contradicted on that by every single scholarly source in the article and even the ones they themselves presented in the talk. Overall hostile and combative editing, combined with unfounded accusations sockpuppetry. Blatant disregard for wikipedia policy on sourcing and verification of content.

Speaking of which I am not the one who started with edit warring and also I am the one who first started talk on tp [[113]], which SigillumVert ignored, they also ignored WP:onus and started attacking me which is obvious by their comments on the tp [[114]], [[115]] as for edit warring , here are the diffs that show that this editor is the one who started with them.

User:SigillumVert edit warring on Prince Marko page

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [[116]] "Warning: Three-revert rule."
  2. [[117]]
  3. [[118]]

As for hostile and combative editing, as presented above [[119]], [[120]] the editor SigillumVert has neither shown a will to reach consensus or willing to cooperate instead insulting, therefore this should be a case of WP:boomerang also this report is filled incorrectly, since the editor left the warning note on my page and then immediately reported me [[121]], [[122]] which implies on WP:gaming Theonewithreason (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theonewithreason: What's the basis for your allegation that SigillumVert is socking?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
My warning was implied on removal of sourced content which I mentioned that they did on Prince Marko page, the note of warning of wp:sockpuppetry is used as standard warning of wikipedia policy, as mentioned as others like WP:or or WP:synth which also were also included. [[123]] Theonewithreason (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@Theonewithreason: It is not a "standard warning". Do not include allegations of violations of policy that don't apply. What you did was a personal attack, and if you do it again, you risk being blocked for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
What consensus is there to be reached when one editor is clearly wrong according to all available sources and his additions to the article contradict the cited references? You insist on having it your way when you have been proven wrong. Hardly the spirit of building an encyclopaedia. SigillumVert (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
(Technical glitch cut me off) I invite all to verify and examine the references to my edits on Livno not being part of Serbia. Page 229 of White's book and page 211 of Fine's. In the infobox and on the talk. Please, do check and verify. SigillumVert (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Also this is not an insult. Hill to die on is a common English idiom meant to signify a pointless struggle.
Quote from wiktionary: An allusion to the instances where a military doggedly pursues a goal or defends a position no matter the cost or (lack of) benefit SigillumVert (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, remember, guys, you're in a contentious topic area. I will be leaving a notice to that effect on talk. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
But edit warring is a violation regardless of whether or not the 3-revert rule applies. Hence this noticeboard is for both edit warring and the 3 revert rule. It is stated here that there are more than one definitions of edit warring and it shouldn't be limited to such a narrow and robotic definition. What happened here was an edit war and there should be a resolution on that.
The topic may be contentious, but the sources are very clear on the matter. And correct me if I am wrong, but we should abide by the scholarly consensus and reliable sources – not whims of a very determined editor. SigillumVert (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
It is true that under some circumstances edit warring is blockable even without four reverts in a 24-hour period ... 1RR, for instance, but that doesn't apply to this article at the moment. And if the reported user had been gaming the rule by, say, making two or three reverts separated by at least 24 hours each time, then yes, I'd have blocked them, as I have done on such occasions in the past. And when people keep making the same revert days apart over some extended period of time, I think at least blocking them from the article for some time is an option.
You only provided three diffs. While for once these actually are reverts (too many people reporting here include the "edit being reverted to" as a revert), that's not enough by itself to trigger action.
And honestly, if "edit warring is a violation regardless of whether or not the 3-revert rule applies", then what by that definition wouldn't be edit warring? To be a fair process notice is required of what conduct will be acceptable and what will not be. Without clear lines that comes down to an administrator's whims. That is not a rule of any Wikipedia most of us would want to be part of.
Edit wars are to be resolved on the talk page, as it seems you have been doing in this case, and in fact it does seem like there has been a resolution.
As for the last part of your post, this noticeboard does not concern itself with the substance of the dispute (unless, per 3RRNO, we are dealing with unsourced or clearly dubiously sourced negative information about a living person), only the conduct of the editors involved. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Well we did manage to avoid the conflict by just removing the content that sparked this from the infobox. However me (and ever single scholarly source) still disagree with editor on his position on Livno being a part of the medieval Serbian kingdom. Who is to say this dispute won't just escalate into another edit war on the Livno article page since the editor is clearly not backing down?
I don't even think he should be blocked. I would just argue for a topic ban on Livno, if such a thing is even possible. Best regards. SigillumVert (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, that's something that should properly be discussed at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Legzxy reported by User:Faster than Thunder (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Cooper Kupp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 23:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC) "Not official until the SEAHAWKS announce it. STOP."
  2. 23:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC) "Not official until the SEAHAWKS announce it. STOP."
  3. 23:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC) "Not official until the SEAHAWKS announce it. STOP."
  4. 23:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC) "Not official until the SEAHAWKS announce it."
  5. 23:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC) "Not official until the SEAHAWKS announce it."
  6. 22:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC) "Not official until the SEAHAWKS announce it."
  7. 22:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC) "Not official until the SEAHAWKS announce it"
  8. 22:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC) "Not official until the SEAHAWKS announce it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cooper Kupp."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

User:2A0A:EF40:1266:8501:F5C4:58BD:B241:773E reported by User:Garudam (Result: Blocked)

Page: Anti-Black racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A0A:EF40:1266:8501:F5C4:58BD:B241:773E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Racism against non-African Black people */Why are you reverting my truthful edits. Why don't you want them to be called "Sub-Saharan Africans"?"
  2. 16:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Racism against non-African Black people */"Sub-Saharan Africans" is the more correct term since black people are native to Sub-Saharan Africa only (not North Africa). Also who says "Black Africans" and do people say "Yellow East Asians", "Brown Indians", "White Europeans" and "Red Native Americans" as well?"
  3. 16:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Racism against non-African Black people */I am not trying to start an edit war but black people are indigenous to Sub-Saharan Africa only, not North Africa and nobody says "Yellow East Asians" or "Brown Indians", so nobody should say "Black Africans"."
  4. 15:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC) "Nobody says "Yellow East Asians" or "Brown Indians", so why say "Black Africans"?"
  5. 15:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC) "But this article only talks about colonialism in Africa, not the rest of the world. Remember the Atlantic slave trade took place in Africa."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 16:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Anti-Black racism."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

WP:IDHT issues. – Garuda Talk! 16:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

6th rv. – Garuda Talk! 17:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Sinclairian reported by User:VenusFeuerFalle (Result: Stale)

Page: {{Yahweh and El (deity)}}
User being reported: Sinclairian (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. [124] - editor keeps reverting an edit fixing a misreferred source
  2. [125] - keeps removing parts of the template summarizing the article even when sourced
  3. [126] - restoring sources violating WP:RS and WP:ABRAHAMICPOV
  4. [127] - removal of sourced content when it goes against their own viewpoints.



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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128] and [129]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [130]

Comments:
Declined as stale, since a) a couple of days have gone by since this edit warring ended without it resuming and it is thus unlikely to accomplish anything and b) the slight malformation of the report makes it difficult to properly review. If this resumes, of course, report it again, and properly formatted. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C7:FD21:2C00:4429:B8FD:B990:7BE6 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: /64 blocked a week)

Page: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A00:23C7:FD21:2C00:4429:B8FD:B990:7BE6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 14:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  2. 14:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC) "You are breaking your own rules by claiming that MBTI is "pseudoscientific"."
  3. 14:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC) "It is not accurate to describe MBTI as "pseudoscientific". You are making a claim based on opinion."
  4. 14:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [131]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 14:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC) on User talk:2A00:23C7:FD21:2C00:4429:B8FD:B990:7BE6 "/* March 2025 */ Reply"

Comments:

Page recently had a RFC on this. IP continued to edit war after being made aware of that. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week The /64. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Osazeenedo reported by User:Kowal2701 (Result: Indeffed as sock)

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

Previous version reverted to: [132]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [133] [134]
  2. [135]
  3. [136]
  4. [137]
  5. [138]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [140]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [141]

Comments:
The page used to have 40 BC as the start date [142]. @Catjacket: made some edits, and the user's edits quickly followed. I don't know whether their first edit counts as a revert, although their second one changes the start date back to 40 BC (they mistakenly put AD) and has the edit summary "Reverted vandalism". In my reverts I was asking them to come to the talk page [143] [144]. They've also cast aspersions [145] Kowal2701 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Also broken 3RR on Ogiso monarchy. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely by PhilKnight Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:71.35.17.223 reported by User:Chrisahn (Result: Blocked one week)

Pages:

User being reported: 71.35.17.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
Previous IPs: 71.35.19.0/24 (blocked for 1 month), 71.35.8.0/21 (blocked for 6 months), 184.98.192.0/18 (blocked for 3 months).
Previous report: User:71.35.19.155 reported by User:Garudam (Result: Blocked one month).
Chrisahn (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of one week by ScottishFinnishRadish for block evasion. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C4:498E:BA01:50A9:FE77:5AC8:4DC1 reported by User:Turini2 (Result: /64 blocked 24h)

Page: London Underground 2024 Stock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A00:23C4:498E:BA01:50A9:FE77:5AC8:4DC1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 15:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - It works like that and has been confirmed, please confirm source has not been confirmed, this will be reported."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC) to 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision This train will replace current 1972 stock, please provide source it wont be"
    2. 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - Removed without any Source"
  3. 14:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - The Source is everywhere, check TFL, Please stop removing fact"
  4. 12:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision - Still Deleting fact! - If you read everywhere, even this article it clearly shows what lines this will operating on.. Use your Head!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 14:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on London Underground 2024 Stock."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 15:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "/* NTfL vs 2024TS */ Reply"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The range 2A00:23C4:498E:BA01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Multiple users reported by User:128.193.8.42 (Result: )

Page: 2026 Arizona gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 68.106.243.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 152.37.235.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [146] Diffs of the user's reverts: [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] []



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172] [173] [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warriors in this dispute haven't made any attempts to resolve it on the talk page

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [175] [176] [177]

Comments: I'm not involved with this dispute, but I came across it while reading this page and it looked very severe and like it had been going on for a long time now with nothing happening 128.193.8.42 (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Please make this person stop. An IP user continuously attempts to add an endorsement on the page cited to social media posts, in violation of WP:ENDORSE, which states that "lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources." Despite being told this over and over again, they refuse to listen. Here's a quote from one of their edit summaries: "WP:ENDORSE requires endorsements to be 'verifiable by reliable sources' but does not mandate that they be covered solely by independent sources." This was after I sent them the aforementioned quote. At a certain point they started trying to claim that my quote is not actually on WP:ENDORSE even though it clearly is. Eventually they dropped that claim, but still refuse to admit they're wrong. I don't know how to reason with someone so detached from reality. I requested for the page to be protected to stop their vandalism, but nobody responded to the request. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
    They have continued to edit war after this post [178] [179] [180]. The BottleOfChocolateMilk has also been reminded many times on their user talk page that American Politics is a contentious topic. 128.193.8.40 (talk) 18:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I reverted once because I hadn't seen this yet. After that I stopped. I am aware that American Politics is a contentious topic. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Actually, Bottle, you arguably violated 3RR. But ... as the edit warring is two days in the past so blocking both of you would not accomplish anything, if you think it's going to resume would you like full protection for three days while you work this out on talk? Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
They were reminded of the edit warring rule many times on their user talk article [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189], so I didn't see anything to suggest that this is just a one-off thing or that they wouldn't continue to edit war in the future. 128.193.8.41 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
There's nothing that could really be "worked out" on talk. You can see from the revision history that I've tried to explain to this IP editor numerous times that they're breaking Wikipedia's rules and yet they continue to deny reality. I seriously doubt that a talk page discussion would go any differently. This is why I don't do talk page "discussions." Two editors argue for a bit, nobody else participates, and thus nothing is resolved. Given that WP:ENDORSE blatantly prohibits what this IP editor is doing, it seems like this could be resolved by having other editors step in and tell them that they're wrong, but it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in doing that. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
All your arguments have been made in edit summaries, which, while granted they appear to have been reading and responding to, are not the ideal format for this sort of thing due to the character limit and indeed aren't supposed to be used for this sort of continued discussion.
I note that one of the IPs themselves invited you, very nicely, to take it to the talk page, which as of this post has not been used since it was created six months ago.
And I agree with the IPs that the wording of ENDORSE is not as clear-cut as you would like it to be. That's why things like this happen, and that's why we have talk pages to clear things like this up at least as far as it applies to particular articles.
Given all this, if you persist in all this, I would see no remaining choice but to not only semi-protect the page for some time, but block you from it for the equivalent since you are EC. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel Case:they did it again [190], same content but different IP that got undone 128.193.152.193 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
BOCM, was this you? It's not a good look in this situation to edit as an IP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:ProKMT reported by User:Guotaian (Result: Both blocked 1 week)

Page: Template:Liberalism in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ProKMT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [192]
  2. [193]
  3. [194]
  4. [195]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [198]

Comments:

The consensus was already established in third opinion a few weeks ago. The user claimed that "It is not REAL third opinion", but third opinions are to resolve disputes so an edit war wouldn't happen again. It is regrettable that the user is not respecting it and wants to intensify conflict. User:Guotaian (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

No agreement has been reached at the third opinion. The definition of "China" is still not agreed upon, I am sticking to the original version and Guotaian is undermining the article. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Political ideology templates) ProKMT (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Guotaian insists on a consensus that doesn't exist. Neither party should be edit warring but I would suggest they, especially, need to stop pursuing this across multiple pages. Simonm223 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 After many disputes, I requested for a third opinion to resolve any warring. Here it is: [199]. Guotaian (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Your edits have already extended far beyond the scope of that 3O and there are other consensus mechanisms including a few AfDs that have been created since and that supersede a 3O. Simonm223 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
See this AfD which directly address not doing what you did with this string of edits. While ProKMT should not edit war, they should not have to feel like they have to edit war in order to protect these articles from clear disruption. There is no such partial justification for your actions here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 Merging the Neoauthoritarianism article had nothing to do with my edits as I had just deleted the sections which included Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. I had never deleted the Neoauthoritarianism section at all. Guotaian (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion, at that AfD, which you participated in, made it very clear that Conservatism in China would cover all parts of China and not just those currently administered by the People's Republic of China. That also led to the move from Conservatism in Greater China back to Conservatism in China - which your edits are now undoing. Again, this is disruptive now and has to stop. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 The third opinion was established before the AFD discussion made a decision. The Third opinion provided a solution for the exact dispute we are currently having and should be respected. Guotaian (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The 3O was before the AfD that overrode it on the basis of a lot more than three opinions being considered. You can't claim you have carte-blanche to override consensus on the basis of one person agreeing with you in a limited subset of cases. I'd rather not have to bother the person who gave the 3O but I think they'd likely agree that their opinion doesn't override consensus at AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 I started the AFD but it was only discussed between you and Pro-KMT. This does not provide the basis for the AFD having authority to decide the ongoing dispute. Guotaian (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
That's not actually the case but see also this AfD where several people weighed in on this situation and opposed your current edit path. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 The AFD you referenced agreed to restore the article to its original title, "Conservatism in China". However, the original version focused solely on the PRC, excluding other regions such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. The AFD did not specify the scope of the reverted page. Therefore, the most accurate approach is to return to its original form follow third opinion's interpretation. Guotaian (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
No. You are, again, incorrect. And you don't have to keep tagging me here. I've presented my evidence. I've nothing further to say here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for tagging you, and I appreciate that you've shared your evidence. However, saying that my point above was " again, incorrect" is not constructive if you do not explain how. If you ever want to revisit the discussion, I'm happy to continue the conversation. Guotaian (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Guotaian reported by User:ProKMT (Result: Both blocked 1 week)

Page: Template:Conservatism in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Liberalism in China (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guotaian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [201], [202]
  2. [203], [204]
  3. [205], [206]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207], [208]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [209]

Comments: Guotaian constantly creates unnecessary editing wars and repeats destructive editing. Guotaian cannot even accept pages from the source or the original version. ProKMT (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Even though I used the talk page to prevent editorial disputes, Guotaian did not participate at all. (Template talk:Conservatism in China#Range of "China") ProKMT (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

User:86.160.247.245 reported by User:Ybsone (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: TVR Griffith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.160.247.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [210]

Diffs of the user's reverts: It is around 13 reverts together only today only on one page. He is constantly removing pictures of a concept car just because he does have an opinion on the ownership of the company. He is a repeating offender.



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]

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

Comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybsone (talkcontribs) 15:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Special:Diff/1281139514 - the IP user reported removing this AN3 report. Departure– (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

User:109.124.199.29 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked)

Page: Shū ni Ichido Classmate o Kau Hanashi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.124.199.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1280127893

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:

IP editor edit warring over the demographic of this novel series, changing it to "Women" as per their opinion, in breach of the consensus that the publication which the novel is serialized in is officially targeted to a male demographic. Made personal attacks against me on their talk page and in one of their inflammatory edit summaries when I attempted to correct their behavior. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Since this report, they have posted a rant about their opinion on the article's talk page. They clearly do not understand the issues with their edits and it does not seem as if they have any interest in doing so. silviaASH (inquire within) 16:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

User:154.208.60.99 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Dhund (tribe) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 154.208.60.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [221] (or [222]; see comment below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [223]
  2. [224]
  3. [225]
  4. [226]
  5. [227]
  6. [228]
  7. [229]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [230]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [231]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [232], [233], [234]

Comments:

The original edit that introduced the unsourced ethnicity claim is this one by Ashir2, though this account has not returned since and the IP is the one edit-warring with more specific additions. Note: the IP user is also edit-warring on the same issue at Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib ([235], [236], [237], [238], [239]), at Abbasi ([240], [241], [242], [243]), and at Abbasid dynasty ([244], [245], [246], [247]); in the latter two cases, the brand new account Sardarkhanabbasi is clearly the same user and, I would guess, will likely continue the edit-warring if not blocked as well. R Prazeres (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

User:WilliowJay reported by User:Abo Yemen (Result: Protected for a week; user indeffed for editing while logged out on another article)

Page: Yemenis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliowJay (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. [248]
  2. [249]
  3. [250]
  4. [251], made using an IP address after being warned

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: custom warning written by me, was later deleted by him

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Page protected for a week. I considered blocking Williow as well, but ... since so far they have not started reverting on the other articles where their content removals have been reverted, there is as yet no damage to the encyclopedia in need of prevention. But, they are strongly advised, that could change. It's up to them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
LOUTSOCKed again. Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 22:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely for that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Pax98 reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Reported at AN/I; user indeffed)

Page: Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Pax98 (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 06:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC) to 06:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 06:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281082626 by Taeyab (talk) Sock edit"
    2. 06:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281082595 by Taeyab (talk) Sock edit"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 01:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC) to 01:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 01:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280998571 by Taeyab (talk)"
    2. 01:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "reverting sock edits"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC) to 04:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "reverted disruptive unsubstantiated edits by sock accounts of Muhamad Ahsan"
    2. 04:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280414355 by Comsats777 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Already subject of an ANI thread. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was hoping that I wouldn't see Pax98's name in this way again after the last incident, but I guess they just did it. Anyways, Comsats777 has attempted to resolve the dispute... I think in the talk page before. the link is here. (Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Fatal casualties of 1965 war ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
"Comsats777 has attempted to resolve the dispute"
-
It's yet another sock of Muhamad Ahsan!! Pax98 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Pax. im guessing you are an indian? Taeyab (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Drop the act, Muhamad. Pax98 (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Declined Since, as noted, this is being discussed at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Already blocked  for a period of Rsjaffe Indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Taeyab reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Declined, mooted by indef block of Pax98)

Page: Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Taeyab (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 05:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC) to 05:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 05:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281063379 by Pax98 (talk)"
    2. 05:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281064010 by Pax98 (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC) to 18:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 17:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280914506 by Pax98 (talk) reverting accurate edits without good reason"
    2. 17:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1280914233 by Pax98 (talk) These casualties are more accurate and have better sources"
    3. 17:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "please find a source for the claim '1,200 pakistani civillians killed' also this should not be stated with military casualties, rather underneath them."
    4. 17:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC) "part of conflicts"
    5. 18:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Edit war ongoing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I undid the reversions of Pax98 who is consistently making disruptive edits and reverting work of others without consensus or explanation. He also appears to be false claiming sockpuppetry on me and other editors. Taeyab (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Declined as clearly retaliation for above report, which itself is under discussion at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Since Pax 98 has been indeffed, there's nothing more we need to do. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, and apologies for all of this Taeyab (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

User:89.113.127.29 reported by User:SilviaASH (Result: Blocked for a week and previous block on other IP extended for that time)

Page: Shū ni Ichido Classmate o Kau Hanashi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.113.127.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1280127893

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [253]
  2. [254]
  3. [255]
  4. [256]
  5. [257]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [258]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [259]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [260]

Comments:

The IP user who was blocked earlier for personal attacks in relation to their edit warring on this page has returned, evading their block under another IP. They have openly admitted to being the same person on the article's talk page, and are continuing the same behavior as before. silviaASH (inquire within) 09:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week This is really not the best noticeboard for this sort of thing, as strictly speaking this wasn't edit warring by the reported IP. But with the admitted block evasion action was necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
If the user evades again under another IP, where would be a better place to request action on it? silviaASH (inquire within) 19:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
SilviaASH, I think WP:SPI is the formally best noticeboard for reporting block evasion, or WP:RFPP if it's limited to one or a few pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

User:95.45.157.176 reported by User:Technopat (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: 95.45.157.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 23:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281367361 by Technopat (talk) I have reviewed my improvement and are happy with them but you have give no reason why you were not; instead you just offer threaths and warnings? Are you meant to discuss your issues on the Talk Page?"
  2. 23:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281365148 by Technopat (talk) Technopat is still blanket reverting without any discussion or reason."
  3. 22:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281363342 by Technopat (talk) You are reverting good edits and improvements without any reason at all save for the assumption that because it is an IP, they must be poor ? Please stop doing this and give proper reasons for your revertions or stop them."
  4. 22:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281362762 by Technopat (talk) you are edit warring and reverting content for no reason; please stop the improvements that have been made to this article unless you have a specific content issue for discussion, Don't assume every IP is a vandal."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 22:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Climbing."
  2. 23:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "/* March 2025 */ Reply."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 23:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Revertions by Technopat */ Reply."

Comments:

Hello Technopat, in Special:Diff/1281368293, you refer to edit summaries you have provided which are "sufficiently clear". Could you please provide diffs of reverts that explained your opposition to the changes in the edit summary? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

User:P Aculeius reported by User:209.204.20.98 (Result: filer blocked 24 hours)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
Romani ite domum User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).P Aculeius

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:

  • I've been reverting what I consider to be repeated vandalism by this IP editor to the article in question—two other editors have done the same. The article in question has been the subject of repeated vandalism over the last two years, always focused on the same paragraph: a statement that a notable author has used a particular film scene to illustrate an issue in arguments over LGBT issues. I started a discussion on the article's talk page, attempting to explain why it was there, and documenting the instances of vandalism. If it is vandalism, my understanding is that the 3RR does not apply. However, I did ask for clarification on this point from the editor who most recently reverted the same edits and posted a warning on the IP editor's talk page. P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Boomerang block or warn here seems appropriate - beside the malformed report, the reported editor has been reverting vandalism in demonstrable good faith based on an admittedly loose interpretation of WP:3RRNO, and the reporter has been the main initiator of the edit war. A proper AN3 notice was not lodged. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 14:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:KitoMaxi (Result: Declined as reporting user already blocked.)

Page: Africa (Roman province) & Algerian Air Force & Algerian Civil Defence & Ancient Libya & Traditional Berber religion & other pages]] 
User being reported: Skitash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [261]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [262]
  2. [263]
  3. [264]
  4. [265]
  5. [266]
  6. [267]
  7. [268]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [269]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [270]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [271]

Comments: edit war past 3rd warning, user is mass undoing edits across several articles 12345..etc, the user is doing this before a verdict is issued on an open case accusation of sockpuppetry, which violates wikipedia WP:DISRUPT, users cannot mass undo sourced edits based on suspicion alone and without justification KitoMaxi (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potymkin, where Skitash has accused the original creator of this of sockpuppetry in this case. Departure– (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for attaching a link to the investigation. It's very obvious that it's a block-evading sock, and I'm not surprised they're denying it, considering they've consistently done the same with every other sockpuppet account of theirs.[272][273][274] I reverted their edits per WP:BLOCKEVADE (including restoring edits made by their prior sock account). As for the one article where I've made four edits within 24 hours without realizing, I've self-reverted my edit until the sock gets blocked. Skitash (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Sock or not, your assumptions have not yet been verified, and you repeatedly used the rollback tool to revert changes @Skitash. There was no imminent need to be doing so instead of allowing the SPI to play out. Instead, you misused rollback across a number of articles while you both engaged in entirely unnecessary edit warring. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
While I don't participate at this board typically, I think both of those involves should be blocked based on the WP:3RR violations at Massylii. Obviously both have behaved entirely inappropriate and were engaged in edit wars across multiple articles, but the linked one is a clear violation from both. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
4 diffs for each of them from Massylii:
KitoMaxi: 1, 2, 3, 4
Skitash: 1, 2, 3, 4
Again, neither was imminently necessary, and it clearly spread to other articles as well (or spread here from elsewhere). Either way, clear inappropriate behaviour by both editors with a clear and defined line being crossed at this article. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for edit warring and violating WP:3RR. I was trying to uphold WP:BLOCKEVADE against a sock, but I see now I should've held off until the investigation was over. It won't happen again and I'll use my rollback permissions carefully and more appropriately next time. Skitash (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
On that note, could you please take a look at this? I'm pretty sure that's a personal attack, and it comes at a time when even other editors are realizing really obvious patterns from their interactions with the editor. Skitash (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Note: The block-evading sock (KitoMaxi) has been confirmed. Skitash (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Already blocked indefinitely by Izno per above. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

User:58.111.101.186 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Mashin Sentai Kiramager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.111.101.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [275]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [276]
  2. [277]
  3. [278]
  4. [279]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [280]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [282]

Comments:

[[User:]] reported by User:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:583F:397:5F08:7637 (Result: No violation)

Page: [[283]]
User being reported: [[284]]

Previous version reverted to: [[285]] [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [286]
  2. [287]
  3. [288]
  4. [289]
  5. [290]



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[291]] [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[292]] [diff]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[293]] [diff]

Comments:User is a rogue admim

The user apparently has administrator power and he apparently has been doing this on multiple pages. I urge that you intervene quickly, so that he is stopped, or that his adminship is revoked. 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:583F:397:5F08:7637 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, Mike should be aware, if he is not already, that even though his edits may be in line with policy they are not covered by WP:3RRNO. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Note that this user failed to notify me on my talk page about their bringing this issue up here. Instead, I discovered this when reviewing their contribution history.
Further, note that the "attempt to resolve issue on talk page" links to a section that I added, not this user.
This user has accused me of being arogue admin and[vandalizing] multiple pages and violating WP:3RR when I am not and have not.
At what point does WP:BOOMERANG apply? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
At the moment declining their report as not a violation is the most we should do. As you pointed out, they left a lot to be desired in their report.
Nonetheless, as an admin you are presumed to know what 3RR is so the absence of a warning would not be a reason not to enforce it—if you had violated it, which you didn't, and to be fair I think that's because you are aware of where the line is. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Marvel2406 reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Both editors blocked 72 hours and alerted to CTOPS)

Page: 2026 Men's T20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Marvel2406 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 12:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  2. 11:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  3. 11:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  4. 10:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Manual of Style related issues (UV 0.1.6)"
  2. 12:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 11:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Marvel2406 "/* March 2025 */ Reply"

Comments:

Continual addition of flags to infobox in violation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS and against the existing consensus. Tried initiating discussion, but replied this. Vestrian24Bio 03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours and alerted to WP:CT/CID. While Marvel clearly indicated on their talk page that they intended to disregard MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS because "it looks prettier that way", that attitude did not give Vestrian the right to revert endlessly as while policy was on their side that kind of reverting is not allowed under WP:3RRNO. Protection should have been requested, at least. I have also alerted both of to WP:CT/CID, which this comes under. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

User:81.31.65.89 reported by User:Speederzzz (Result: Blocked one month)

Page: Karen White case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 81.31.65.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Stop wasting time editing articles you admit you know nothing about."
  2. 11:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Restored, as person objecting has admitted he knows nothing about this matter and has no basis for objecting"
  3. 11:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281605072 by Speederzzz (talk)"
  4. 11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "That debate has already been settled - the name is in the article already. I'm simply pointing out that it should be right at the start."
  5. 11:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "His real name is a matter of public record - and is already in the article anyway."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 12:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Deadname in lede? */ new section"

Comments:

Warning given on talk page by User:CipherRephic Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 11:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

User attempted to remove this entry. How they think this will help their case remains a mystery to all. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 12:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of one month due to not only their edit warring, but their incivility, general bad attitude, and BLP violations requiring multiple RevDels. On top of that I had to put project banners, CTOPS, and other notices on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Real estate investment professional reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked indef as a SOA)

Page: Kennedy Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Real estate investment professional (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "No Mr Ollie, you are the one making the changes to perfectly neutral information, so until you get consensus from a user unrelated to you, the text remains."
  2. 16:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Strongly disagree with MrOllie and want to initiate larger discussion on this."
  3. 15:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "Restored introductory paragraph, summarising the company's operations in non-promotional language as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_blatant_advertising"
  4. 17:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  5. 17:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  6. 17:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "I noticed this was reverted by MrOllie - Please note this is not promotional material, this is clearly describing the company's investment profile as per the cited sources."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 17:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Kennedy Wilson."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 16:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Reverts to return promotional language */ new section"

Comments:

Single purpose editor edit warring to force promotional language into an article on a company. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

cool can we have more people review this please? Real estate investment professional (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I simply updated introductory paragraph as per more recent information and Mr. Ollie is dubbing as 'forcing promotional language' and is deleting all content of introductory paragraph bringing to a much pooper state than the previous version. Real estate investment professional (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@Real estate investment professional: do you have a WP:COI with this company? It would seem you have some connection with it. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Guys, with all due respect again, I don't.. I work in the industry and I've been fixing or updating information on real estate articles every now and then when I see it. I just only recently decided to create an account. I feel like I've been attacked this time and just taking it a bit personally now.
Can we please look at this in an unbiased manner and just look at the information I updated/contributed to judge if it is promotional? Again I know there is a whole thread about "what about article X", but all company wikipedia articles outline what the business does in the opening paragraph (which by the way was also the case in this article - I simply just updated it to the latest information..)
Please let's not turn this into a personal thing, I come with the kindest intentions and my apologies for starting this edit war, but can we please just objectively look at the text in the context of all real estate related articles? Real estate investment professional (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely as a promotional-only account. The edit warring and combative mentality didn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
How does the edit imply promotion? I see additional, useful information added by the user with legitimate reasons to revert. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
First, broadly, see WP:YESPROMO. Second, they insisted on adding in the lede more specific information about what their firm does that is, on Wikipedia, usually left to the body of the article. Third, apart from all this they promoted nothing so much as complete disregard for our edit-warring policy. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Addendum re "legitimate reasons to revert": See WP:3RRNO. That does not come under any of those exceptions. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Dipper Dalmatian reported by User:2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F4B1:B10C:1C9F:C0FB (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)

Page: List of television shows notable for negative reception (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dipper Dalmatian (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_television_shows_notable_for_negative_reception&diff=prev&oldid=1281833969
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_television_shows_notable_for_negative_reception&diff=prev&oldid=1281835755
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_television_shows_notable_for_negative_reception&diff=prev&oldid=1281837003
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_television_shows_notable_for_negative_reception&diff=prev&oldid=1281837719
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_television_shows_notable_for_negative_reception&diff=prev&oldid=1281838237


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [294]

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

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

Comments:

Edit warring to remove content, leaving an incomplete sentence behind in the process. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:F4B1:B10C:1C9F:C0FB (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Rcarter555 reported by User:Chick Pea Corea (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)

Page: Roman Polanski User being reported: Rcarter555

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Polanski&oldid=1281831039
  2. . https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Polanski&oldid=1281837433
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Polanski&oldid=1281843231

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Polanski&oldid=1281843395

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

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rcarter555&oldid=1281844565

Comments:

This user has violated the 3RR rule, claiming that he represents the consensus. The consensus on the page is: do not include charges in the first sentence but display them prominently. The user reverts to a lede that violates MOS (breaking the chronology of Polanski's biography). Chick Pea Corea (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Chick Pea Corea, would you please find something more constructive than jumping into conflicts with experienced editors on high-profile articles? Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2601:840:4200:BAE0:31F0:15B6:CFB7:3ADF reported by User:ESkog (Result: Already blocked)

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

User being reported: 2601:840:4200:BAE0:31F0:15B6:CFB7:3ADF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Species */"
  3. 23:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Species */"
  4. 18:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Species */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 23:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Opah."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

User:Binksternet reported by User:Davejfudge (Declined as malformed)

I originally altered an edit by User:Binksternet on Whomp That Sucker that cited a source that I saw as unfit for direct inclusion on a music review infobox because the rating that has no justification in the source material; I also later removed, as part of my another source added by User:Binksternet that had the same problem. I moved the first citation to the dedicated notes section for historical context, but didn't remove it, and I removed the second citation (starting with my first reversion) because it sorely lacks coverage.

He has now reverted my edit 3 times, and I have reverted twice. He now accuses me instead of reverting three times while we refuses to wait for concensus in the talk page, violating WP:ONUS. I am also accussed of WP:NPOV because the reviews I moved/removed coincidentally have lower reviews, despite that I have history of adding less-than-favorable reviews to albums I like better than the one in question (e.g. In Outer Space Sounds review). Davejfudge (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about racking up three reverts. One was from yesterday evening which I thought was longer ago, and it fooled my count. I'll stick to the talk page discussion you started at Talk:Whomp That Sucker#Ratings that lack justification. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Regardless of the time frame, I have not reverted your additions three times. The first edit you consider a revert was not a revert because I did not remove what you added. Davejfudge (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C7:8EED:4D00:64F3:8AE7:96A0:33F1 reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Vegan Camp Out (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A00:23C7:8EED:4D00:64F3:8AE7:96A0:33F1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Simply patience 405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Consecutive edits made from 19:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC) to 19:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 19:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281993755 by Pigsonthewing (talk) Undone as disruptive evidence. Not 'advertisement' - Previous editor referenced their source where they should. These are standard festival facts as seen on other festival Wiki pages - please visit for reference"
    2. 19:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281993089 by Pigsonthewing (talk) Undone as disruptive evidence. Not 'advertisement' - Previous editor referenced their source where they should. These are standard festival facts as seen on other festival Wiki pages - please visit for reference"
  2. 17:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281978059 by Insanityclown1 (talk) I have undone this revision as these points about the event are more than reasonable and backed up with references. They are similar to information listed on other event pages"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Pretty sure that this is the user simply patience 405 editing while logged out. The user has been taken to ANI, but the behavior is continuing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Vegan Camp Out, not ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Simply Patience is at ANI. Pretty sure they are the same person @Pigsonthewing Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Yadomii reported by User:216.58.25.209 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: 2025 Turkish protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yadomii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1281969026

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [295]
  2. [296]
  3. [297]
  4. [298]
  5. [299]
  6. [300]
  7. [301]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [302]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None before report. [303] at Amakuru's request.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [304]

Comments:

216.58.25.209 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Davejfudge (Result: Page protected)

Page: Whomp That Sucker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (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] 03:41, 23 March 2025 "restoring All Music Guide rating. This rating was given by the book's editors, not Ned Raggett""
  2. [diff] 16:31, 23 March 2025 Reverted 2 edits by Davejfudge (talk): Rv... The 2-star book rating came from the editors Woodstra, Erlewine and Bogdanov. The 3.5 star review came from the later website, with no attribution. They are two different ratings and are both valid.
  3. [diff] 16:34, 23 March 2025 Reverted 1 edit by Davejfudge (talk): Rv per WP:NPOV


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [305]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 11:56, 23 March 2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whomp_That_Sucker&oldid=1281940158

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

Comments:
Binksternet added two sources to the music review infobox. Both ratings linked to sources that never discussed the album in any length, where the All Music book reference was context for how the current AllMusic website had a different rating. I moved the first one to the notes section without removing the citation, and updated both sources to have more properly cited credits (e.g. wrong publisher), writing in the edit comments that I was unsure of the validity of the second source's inclusion. No reversion up to that point. I additionally mention my skepticism of the inclusion of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music source on the talk page, waiting for concensus instead of removing it for the time being.

Two days later (important), Binksternet reverts the All Music Guide book rating back to the table, giving a justification that my previous edit addressed already.

I restored my previous edit and removed the Encyclopedia reference since Binksternet didn't reply in the talk page, but still inviting him to reply.

Binksternet reverts this, then going to the talk page to accuse me of bias (specifically WP:NPOV), assuming I acted out of bad faith, of "jumping through hoops" because the ratings in question coincidentally happen to be lower, despite the justifications I gave (See my addition of the Sounds review for In Outer Space, the same artist). I really don't care about listing a bad review. I just care about not including sources that give less than a passing mention to the material unless, in the case of the first AllMusic rating, it is a small piece of context for the modern review that just needs a tweak to how it's incorporated.

I revert this, then Binksternet makes his third reversion.

Sorry for the long explanation, but it feels so demoralizing because I thought that I tried everything I could to get concensus or a dialogue, but my reversions were met with accusations and assumptions that I acted purely out of bad faith, and that the music rating template's lack of specificity on what constitutes a reasonable source, rather than a policy, was justification enough for everything. On my talk page, Binksternet also told me I could be banned. To be clear, I don't know if I technically violated the rule myself, because by the time by last reversion came, although Binksternet reverted three times within 24 hours at that point, my penultimate reversion was done in two smaller chunks. I'll accept whatever decision comes my way and I apologize if I've done any wrong here myself. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Information iconHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Davejfudge (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2601:240:C601:F8C0:7981:8FAE:8AFE:7A70 reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

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

User being reported: 2601:240:C601:F8C0:7981:8FAE:8AFE:7A70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 05:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Listen, you greens and whites. Chinese is the local language of Penang. Before the Anglos and Muslims, the Hans had already lived here."
  3. 20:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "White🐷"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Racist editing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Dolphinlover0987 reported by User:Anerdw (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Erick Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dolphinlover0987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 15:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282138228 by Anerdw (talk)"
  2. 15:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Unwanted information about the user"
  3. 15:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282136206 by Unit Mango (talk)"
  4. 15:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Persistent UCR of "Controversy" section past final warning. User:Instainkllc is also involved and has been reported at AIV but did not receive sufficient warning for an EW report beforehand. Anerdw (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding on to this, Dolphinlover0987 has been disruptively editing the Erick Jones article since March 6, 2025. the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 16:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Objectiveanalysis reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Blocked from article 48 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Fix typo (pseudosientific). Add peer-reviewed secondary sources (systematic reviews and meta-analysis) aligning with WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and WP:FRIND. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chromotherapy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Chromotherapy for the discussion."
  2. 00:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282045621 by McSly (talk) The pseudoscience claim is from old books that are several years behind the current state of evidence and directly in conflict with the requirements of WP:MEDRS on 'Books'. No reliable evidence from recent secondary peer-reviewed sources supports this claim."
  3. 23:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282043761 by McSly (talk). Please see the discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chromotherapy). The sources added below meet WP:MEDRS, and the ones in introduction are for the term 'Chromotherapy' only."
  4. 22:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Add peer-reviewed sources that not in WP:CITEWATCH and are WP:FRIND. Add secondary sources including systematic reviews as well."
  5. 12:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Added peer-reviewed journal articles and randomized clinical trials on the effects of chromotherapy."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 18:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 12:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Include references to peer-reviewed journal articles */ Reply"

Comments:

User is repeatedly removing or watering-down the pseudoscience description in the article's lead. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Ratgomery reported by User:Belbury (Result: Stale )

Page: Tesla Takedown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 01:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Removed without consensus or support."
  2. 10:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282093605 by Belbury (talk) it's properly source and Tesla Takedown is mentioned by name. Talk page did not include polocy based reason to exclude."
  3. 23:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Mobilization */ Source directly mentions Tesla Takedown in the same paragraph."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 08:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tesla Takedown."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 08:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "/* NPR source linking Tesla Takedown to violence and vandalism. */ Reply"

Comments:

Myself and another editor are reverting each other over whether it is correct to suggest that the peaceful Tesla Takedown protests "took a violent turn" in late March, on the basis of a single disputed source. I myself have reverted or rewritten this multiple times under WP:EXCEPTIONAL for it making a very surprising-if-true claim about a group that has prominent, named supporters and organisers. (I also reverted User:Sjö who restored Ratgomery's paragraph, but from their edit summary ofnot at all a fringe theory or exceptional claim that damage has happened and that people are charged they misunderstood my underexplained objection: that the damage happened is not an exceptional claim; that it was a result of the named Tesla Takedown movement taking a "violent turn" very much is.)

Ratgomery has suggested taking this to the EW noticeboard, so here's a report. Belbury (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Stale The edit warring has died down (and is less than over 3 reverts per 24 hours), plus talk page discussion is ongoing. So this doesn't need immediate administrator attention at this time. Also, Ratgomery specifically asserted he was "trying very hard to avoid an edit war here". Similarly, I don't think a boomerang is relevant as your edits are citing apparent consensus from the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:NinosDg reported by User:User623921 (Result: No violation)

Page: Defence of Iwardo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NinosDg (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. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [306]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [307]

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

Comments:
NinosDg has a history of having changed articles for POV liking it seems, see this with multiple warnings. --User623921 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Ortaq reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [308]
  2. [309]
  3. [310]
  4. [311]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [312]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [313]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [314]

Comments:

That's not even including the personal attacks [315] [316] [317], silly accusations of sockpuppetry [318] [319] [320] and very poor attempt at WP:GAMING [321] [322] [323] (basically accusing others of the violations they are doing). Back in November 2024 they were already warned to stop randomly throwing the word "vandalism" [324]. This should really be taken to WP:ANI, but I am very bit busy/tired, so I guess this will do. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2605:8D80:480:7ED:B199:177F:CC49:ED41 reported by User:Lolzer3000 (Result: Rangeblocked)

Page: 2025 Trident Aviation DHC-5 crash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2605:8D80:480:7ED:B199:177F:CC49:ED41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 21:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

Two IP's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2605:8D80:480:7ED:89BF:8352:44D5:41DB and this one have both been engaged in activities such as personal attacks and edit warring, I believe the two are closely related as they made reverts to my edits on the same article. This IP specially made unwarranted remarks and personal attacks on me after I nominated the above page for deletion. Lolzer3k 21:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

couldn't take the facts, so you go to the administrator board, good job buddy and happy 5th birthday 2605:8D80:480:7ED:B5DD:A63C:F6E3:D0E1 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Consuela9890 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

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

User being reported: Consuela9890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282331982 by Soetermans (talk) Correct, but that was before I provided the source, which is understandable, I should've have provided here in the first place, but that doesn't take the fact that the nature of the edits are constructive non-controversial and most importantly, supported by sources or some known fact. You are quoting rules that doesn't take into consideration the context"
  2. 19:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282326689 by Remsense (talk) All of those edits are constructive non-controversial ones, therefore discussions are not needed, the only edits that were made was ortographic corrections and added some important info about the concept of sovereignty at the time, nothing controversial about that. What you are proposing goes well beyond the rules currently in place and is over zealous"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 18:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC) to 19:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
    1. 18:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282322235 by Teixant (talk) Wrong, the correct Portuguese spelled name is Samora not Zamora: https://digitarq.arquivos.pt/details?id=3908043"
    2. 18:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ""
  4. 17:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Corrected misspelled name"
  5. 16:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

User keeps edit-warring, despite warnings. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:97.112.197.204 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked for 3 months)

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

User being reported: 97.112.197.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 13:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "It is not a redundant acronym. Try going to the talk page and explaining how I'm wrong. If you can't then you're tacitly admitting I'm right and you don't care about factual accuracy."
  2. 13:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "There are also 'sources' that say the earth is flat. DC comics is not a redundant acronym, period. Go to the talk page before reverting my edit and I'll explain it to you"
  3. 13:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "But it's NOT a redundant acronym. Jesus Christ, stop read and let it sink in. DC is the company. Comics are a product they sell. Therefore DC comics are the product 'comics' from the company 'DC'. Just go to the talk page before reverting again"
  4. 13:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "DC comics is STILL not a redundant acronym. 'Detective Comics' is the company name while 'comics' are a product they sell."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 13:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on RAS syndrome."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 13:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* DC comics is STILL not redundant. */ Reply"

Comments:

User:Lionel Cristiano reported by User:VictiniFan360 (Result: Declined)

Page: Visa requirements for Argentine citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lionel Cristiano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [325]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [326]
  2. [327]
  3. [328]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [329]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [330]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VictiniFan360]

Comments:

--VictiniFan360 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not getting into a edit war, nor do I want to.Let’s work together to find a solution that respects Wikipedia’s guidelines and maintains a collaborative editing environment. Looking forward to your input. How right is it that you came here after this message? Leotalk 15:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Declined I see no effort to discuss the content dispute, which should take place on the article Talk page. Both of you are edit-warring; neither has violated 3RR. Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Remsense reported by IP for Edit Warring (Result: No violation)

Page: Dante Alighieri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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


Diffs of the user's reverts: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282495007 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282494246 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante_Alighieri&oldid=1282493783 Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Remsense&diff=prev&oldid=1282495252 Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dante_Alighieri&diff=prev&oldid=1282496505 2601:2C1:8500:7D50:458D:9DE2:A398:B63D (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, please just re-read WP:3RR so we can avoid wasting any of the admins' time. Remsense ‥  19:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Withdraw your 3RR violation and stop edit warring and I'll remove the complaint. 2601:2C1:8500:7D50:458D:9DE2:A398:B63D (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
If you don't care to know what WP:3RR actually says, then I can't help you with this. Remsense ‥  19:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
  • No violation IP, if you'd used the standard report and filled in the links as required, you'd have noticed that 3RR was not broken. Hammer it out on the talk page please.Ponyobons mots 19:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

User:U was0 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Partial block)

Page: Ja'alin tribe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U was0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This was the version before the user got started: it was pretty stable, though another user, Ahmed al joami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), had made similar edits (though more amateurish); running CU on the editor I'm reporting wouldn't be a bad idea.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. the first, two removals
  2. the second one
  3. the third one
  4. the fourth, another set
  5. the fifth
  6. the sixth
  7. the seventh
  8. the eighth
  9. the ninth
  10. the tenth


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:U was0 is full of warnings, including the block notice by PhilKnight--yes, the user was blocked, and went right back to edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ja'alin tribe is full of discussion, where the user keeps repeating the same arguments and has nothing of substance to say, except to link one single book, which could never counter the half dozen or dozen academic sources cited in the article. The conflict is quite complex and I won't bore you with the details, and the editor is not completely wrong, but they are adopting a view not borne out by scholarship in the way they expressed it. Editors who have reverted them and/or discussed matters on the talk page include User:DervotNum4, User:Discospinster, User:Applodion--and me. If I weren't involved I'd have p-blocked them indefinitely already. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

User:180.189.84.223 reported by User:Risedemise (Result: blocked for three months)

Page: Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.189.84.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [331]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [332]
  2. [333]
  3. [334]
  4. [335]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [336] (In reference to a different page where similar behavior is occurring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [337] (Again a different page, but the IP in question does not appear to engage in Talk page discussions, regardless)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [338]

Comments:
They don't seem to have ever engaged in discussion (despite numerous warnings) and rarely include an edit summary. But are very diligent in watching, reverting and tweaking the handful of pages they are focused on, which also appears to include the following pages:

Risedemise (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Bigboydav reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Avengers: Doomsday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision of false and/or useless information. 1282518905 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
  2. 22:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282518748 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
  3. 22:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "removing false information"
  4. 22:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282516123 by MarioProtIV (talk)"
  5. 22:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "updated cast"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 22:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Avengers: Doomsday."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 21:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
  2. 21:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
  3. 22:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
  4. 22:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"

Comments:

User:91.97.115.102, User:91.97.122.0 and User:31.150.189.46 reported by User:Chrisahn (Result: various blocks; page protected)

Page: 2025 Turkish protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP socks from same ISP and same area in Northern Germany:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1282059594

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special: Diff/1282540603
  2. Special: Diff/1282540026
  3. Special: Diff/1282539325
  4. Special: Diff/1282536210
  5. Special: Diff/1282531758
  6. Special: Diff/1282520103
  7. Special: Diff/1282501272
  8. Special: Diff/1282063112

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special: Diff/1282501272

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2025 Turkish protests#Lead sentence MOS:AVOIDBOLD

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

  1. Special:Diff/1282538902
  2. Special:Diff/1282539163
  3. Special:Diff/1282539047

Comments:
The edit warring has been going on for three days (four if we include Yadomii's edits), and the latest IP is particularly disruptive. To reduce further disruption, we should block all three IPs for a couple of days. — Chrisahn (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks like both EW (involving multiple IPs) and also LOUTSOCK of the named account, which had previously been blocked for EW. IPs blocked 3 days each, account blocked 1 week (also CIR-fail on their talkpage).
While doing this paperwork after setting the blocks, up popped:
to continue the behavior, so now also blocked 3 days.
The target page's 2-day semi-protection expired less than a day ago; reprotected for 2 weeks. DMacks (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Another 178.142.189.x jumped into the game (at talkpage), so I expanded the 3-day block to that /24. DMacks (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Kevin L Revie reported by User:Bedivere (Result: Revie p-blocked; now indef site-wide block)

Page: Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Kevin L Revie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Removed references accusing me of a crime"
  2. 18:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "This article incorrectly suggested that my game, Rubber Hose Rampage, violated copyright, which is 100% incorrect."
  3. 15:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* List */ This article incorrectly suggested that my game, Rubber Hose Rampage, violated copyright, which is 100% incorrect."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse."
  2. 19:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse."
  3. 19:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


Comments:

I'd like to point out that this user is making legal threats by email. I was sent one that reads:

What are you doing?  Twice now you reverted my changes which change the following page so it accuses me of committing a crime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_based_on_a_copyright-free_Mickey_Mouse

You can't publicly accuse somebody of committing a crime without any kind of evidence.  That is slander and that is a crime.

My name is Kevin Revie.  I am the owner of Revie Studios LLC, the company that makes Rubber Hose Rampage.  I have NOT infringed on ANY copyrights, nor have I been accused of infringing on any copyrights in court, so why does that page say that I did?

I will sue, if you force me to.

Bedivere (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  • User:Kevin L Revie, this is not how we handle disputes here. You are blocked indefinitely from editing that article directly; you may use the article talk page to discuss the matter--but you should do so in a courteous manner. As a side note, in one of your edit summaries you said, "This article incorrectly suggested that my game...etc". Our article does not do that: the EarlyGame article puts it up for question. You can take it up with them. As for the legal threat, Bedivere, that's interesting: if Revie would confirm they sent that email, I suppose we could block for WP:NLT--as it stands, the threat wasn't on Wikipedia. BusterD, weren't we discussing legal threats the other day? What do you think?
    Finally, Bedivere, one more thing: why should I not block you? You never even explained in an edit summary what was wrong with the edit, not until the last one. You left warnings, sure, and that's your saving grace here, but I urge you to not bring yourself into a situation like this again. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    My bad, at first I just reverted as I thought it was vandalism, then checked out some details and turned out it was just a COI editor. Bedivere (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I can confirm I sent that email. I sent it through Wikipedia's send email function. I would assume you would have a copy. Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
I welcome an Administrative review. it is ridiculous that I had to change the page three times before someone who knows what they are doing can look at the problem. Three times now, you have changed that page so that it publicly accuses me of committing a crime. There is no way Wikipedia would allow that. This page has been live for a year now. Nobody ever told me this was up and my contact information has always been publicly available.. That is slander, it never should have been allowed on this website. Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Ahh, sorry, I wasn't aware of protocol. All I want, is for that page not to accuse me of copyright infringement. Are you saying that isn't possible to do? I was made aware of the EarlyGame article and that Wikipedia page last night. I commented on the EarlyGame article this morning. If you view that page now, you can see my comment:
https://earlygame.com/news/gaming/this-cuphead-clone-uses-public-domain-micky-mouse-but-probably-violates-copyright-nonetheless Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Kevin L Revie, "protocol"? Adults don't go around threatening other people with law suits. Again, "the page" does not accuse you of anything: it says "alleged use of still-copyrighted characters". Alleged. If I were you, I'd have a cold drink and step away, and then I would go back and argue, on the talk page, that "and character designs from Silly Symphony films" is sourced to the YouTube trailer for the game or whatever it is, and that's not acceptable: it needs a secondary source, and the claim is original research. Then I would ask for the last sentence to be removed because it is completely unverified and thus also original research. Finally, I would argue that EarlyGame is just another zine with no authority, whose editorial page claims that the "team diligently fact-checks information before publishing it to ensure accuracy", but that this is a hollow claim because no editorial team or standards are identified, and the person who wrote it does not seem to have any kind of established authority. And maybe I'd argue that non-notable games/works/whatever shouldn't be listed on Wikipedia in the first place, per convention, unless they have strong secondary sourcing, which this entry does not. Oh, there is a thing I would not do: rant on the EarlyGame page. Nothing good can come out of that. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
How is "alleged use of still-copyrighted characters", not accusing me of a crime? You are arguing semantics. This Bedivere person changed the page in question three times, so it accuses me of a crime. Or "alleges" I committed a crime, if you prefer.
I have every right to file a lawsuit, US law says: falsely alleging someone committed a crime, can constitute slander, which is a form of defamation, if it injures their reputation
That is exactly what is happening here. Every time I explained why I was making the change and the article was again changed to slander me. I don't want to file a lawsuit. I just want the Wikipedia page updated. Kevin L Revie (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Copyright violation is not necessarily a crime ... in fact, it is usually a civil matter. And what you are being accused of here is really just a violation of Wikipedia policy on fair use, for which we have stricter standards than US copyright law (which we are allowed to do like any other website that hosts content ... in fact quite a few foreign-language Wikipedias permit no fair-use content whatsoever). Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Can I just point out that the idiot who wrote the EarlyGame article is NOT a copyright lawyer? If anyone accuses anyone of anything on a website, you have to include it on Wikipedia? Is that how this site works? Kevin L Revie (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
No, that is not how Wikipedia works. That the writer is not a copyright lawyer is something you can bring up on the talk page. Not here. Here we are only discussing your behavior. If you want to do something positive here, you can apologize for that email, to the editor. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Hey, so, the problem is solved, they deleted me from that stupid fuckin' list.  The gloves are off now, so fuck you!  Asshole, that is my game and you let some random person repeat an obviously stupid rumor about my game.  Please ban me, I want nothing to do with your stupid idiotic elitist Wikipedia system.  How is that random person allowed to decide what is real about my game.  That is MY fuckin' game, once I told them who I was, they should have shut the fuck up.  Seriously, my game was the only one they talked shit about in that in entire fuckin' list.  I tried to be cool.  I just wanted to remove some obviously fake rumors.  That was all I did.  Fuck you dude, You could have easily solved the problem, but you choose to fight me Kevin L Revie (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I love to fight, try me, bitch Kevin L Revie (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Given these comments and the confirmation that he sent the email containing legal threats, I think a p-block isn't enough. The user should be blocked fully and indef. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: @Drmies:Chrisahn (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, block me bitch. I was always in the right. Go ahead and keep denying, what you know is true. Kevin L Revie (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Somebody needs a nap and/or a snack. Indeffed EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

User:ITSROYALTY reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: Blocked)

Page: Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ITSROYALTY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [339]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [340]
  2. [341]
  3. [342]
  4. [343]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [344][345]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [346]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [347]

Comments:

User:Gencist101 reported by User:Bored kittycat (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Western hunter-gatherer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gencist101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [348]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [349]
  2. [350]
  3. [351]
  4. [352]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [353]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [354]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [355]

Comments:
Appears to have been resolved, but feel free to review if necessary. Bored kittycat (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

User:AnExtraEditor reported by User:Pbritti (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Canadian Indian residential school gravesites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282667508 by TarnishedPath (talk) taken out recent coverage until more balanced section expansion is agreed on. Otherwise kept policy-aligned edits until consensus can be had to change, based on policy incl. WP:IAR (IAR is directly opposed to the principle of wikibureaucracy that harmful behavior should be prevented by forcing users to strictly adhere to a set of regulations.)"
  2. 20:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282658617 by Pbritti (talk) removing what I think you were referring to as original research; as I could be mistaken this was that. Otherwise hoping to improve article with the constructive edits that aren't original research. Happy to discuss specific issues."
  3. 20:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Media reporting in 2021 */ expanded last section with more recent notable coverage and context for the NYT article."
  4. 18:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282588957 by TarnishedPath (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 20:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Canadian Indian residential school gravesites."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 20:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Multiple smaller issues */ Reply"

Comments:

This editor has a history of political bias and has repeatedly inserted their poorly sourced, undue original research despite multiple editors reverting, warning, and explaining these issues to them. Pbritti (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see our discussions in full the user initiated on my talk page, as well as the article. We've made some constructive progress, but accusations of bad faith, political bias, text walling, etc. has ended up raising this to others when we can and should resolve our disagreements ourselves as mature and experienced (although they much more than I) adults and editors.
Mistakes such as what I now know to be original research were reverted by myself upon helpful feedback from this user and others. Any remaining minor edits should be supported by the sources and policy, but again I'm not the most experienced editor, and as has been demonstrated, happy to revert and improve where specifics are engaged on (as opposed to blanket accusations of bias and not willing to engage unless a editor gets their way with a edit).
Not sure if I should report Pbritti for similar reasons to why he is reporting me, but I figure not helpful to clog up the process when I think they are able to work with me and others to form consensus and work out the specific minor edits, as we've proven before.
Kindly, AnExtraEditor (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Worth noting that the editor being reported is attempting to insert content supporting a conspiracy theory linked to denialism of Indigenous Canadian genocide. This is classic civil POV pushing, and the claims of inexperience are directly contradicted by their previous references to policies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
You can see I'm not as experienced as Pbritti given even a cursory glance at my edit history and probably improper formatting, policy citing, etc.
This isn't about political theories or politics. Let's stick to encyclopedic policy and work, not assuming bad faith, political bias, us vs. them, etc. AnExtraEditor (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
genocide & conspiracy theory are loaded terms, let's keep our discussion neutral and not appeal to emotion or use loaded language to make our case.
It is also a fallacy that if someone cites Wiki policies that they are therefore not inexperienced.
again, we've worked constructively before, no need to add further work for others when we can work out minor edits as mature and capable editors. AnExtraEditor (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This is continuing now on 2021 Canadian church burnings. Despite multiple editors telling them exactly what the issues are, they will revert back to their preferred version. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive493, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.