Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive494
User:87.116.177.191 reported by User:Updating Edits (Result: Semi-protected one month; reporting user indeffed as sock)
Page: Belgrade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.116.177.191 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]
Comments:
Hello, specified unregistered user with IP address 87.116.177.191, 188.120.100.217, 188.120.100.138 is believed to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit and edit warring. The user is purposely vandalising the Wikipedia article of Belgrade and it's main photography and keeps reverting other users edits, particularly the ones who are changing the Belgrade's Main photography. Username PajaBG has opened a conversation on Talk page regarding the change of Belgrade's main photo, and supported my opinion that pictures are preferred not to be panoramic view of city and that Belgrade's waterfront is not the most prominent part of Belgrade and it's often connected with crime, corruption and other problematic views of that. There are other pictures and attractions to use, but whatever other users put, the anonymous IP user will revert it and comment "revert to stable version, stop edit war". The page was once restricted due to his reverts. If you could protect the page and investigate the problem, that would be great. Thank you for your help.
- Semi-protected for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Nominating editor blocked indefinitely as a sock by ScottishFinnishRadish Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
User:GuyFromEE reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Avengers: Doomsday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GuyFromEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "The actors being listed here for months is irrelevant. Also that was because the trades were the ONLY source of information. We now have an official source of information from the studio itself. So use THAT official source of information for the cast listing."
- 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Stick to officially announced cast members only. Not ones quoted from 'reliable sources' only the officially announced cast."
- 20:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Reliable sources doesn't overall an official cast announcement."
- 20:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Trades are reliable sources not CONFIRMED sources. Wait until official confirmation before including them in the cast list."
- 20:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "It's not 'very obviously' names missing. Wait for official announcements before including them here."
- 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Removed cast members not included in official cast announcement."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 21:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
- 21:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
- 22:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
- 22:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Actors */ Reply"
Comments:
Yet another editor who has been edit warring over this article's contents. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigboydav.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- Roger that. I just wasn't sure whether an SPI was necessary and only noticed this editor's edits after reporting the preceding one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- A CheckUser found the two users to be "unrelated". That doesn't prevent another admin from blocking GuyFromEE for edit-warring, but I'm not going to take action because I'm tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to note that this editor has since insisted at the article's talk page that certain reports are "speculation" and clearly does not understand the basics of reliable sourcing, despite myself and other editors attempting to explain sourcing (among other processes) to them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- A CheckUser found the two users to be "unrelated". That doesn't prevent another admin from blocking GuyFromEE for edit-warring, but I'm not going to take action because I'm tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- Roger that. I just wasn't sure whether an SPI was necessary and only noticed this editor's edits after reporting the preceding one. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Yes, user has been discussing at talk, but talk page shows this isn't the first time they've edit warred to the point of being warned of an imminent block, and they were rather defiant about the potential of being blocked the first time. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Des Vallee reported by User:Avatar317 (Result: Declined as stale)
Page: Social Security (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Des Vallee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Version before edit warring: [10]
Diffs of the user's reverts: Slow edit warring, to push new content and location of content added 2025-03-16 by Des Vallee.
They did their first ever edits to the article as two content additions in one edit here [11]
I reverted PART of that edit: [12] - "Reverted recent addition: 1) bankrate.com is NOT a Reliable Source. 2) Cuts have been proposed to Social Security in almost every Republican administration; this is not LEAD WORTHY content. See WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." - IF these cuts actually happen, that might be leadworthy because it would be enduring"
Then the edit warring with given reasons being personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith rather than reasons pertaining to Wikipedia policies and any discussion of the specific edit(s).
Their edit here: [13] - "patent WP:BATTLEGROUNDING"
False claim that their version is stable: [14] - "This information is WP:STABLE version"
Repeated false claim: [15] - "readd stable content"
And most recently here: [16] - "See talk, reverting to stable version, still edit warring isn't good. If you want to do these changes get concensus first"
And failing to understand (or want to understand) WP:ONUS, which I mentioned twice on my edit summaries: [17] and [18] - "Yet again, per WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." - YOU added this content, I dispute it, and you have not achieved consensus for its inclusion."
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: From previous discussions with that editor they believe they are right about everything and have never conceded that they are wrong on anything, so a Talk page discussion with them ALONE is useless. That editor agreeing with themselves on Talk and having no other editors involved does not make consensus, and refusing to wait for other editors to contribute on Talk does not give them consensus to continue pushing their preferred addition into the article.
Here is an example of Des Vallee's "attempts at discussion" on the Talk page:
Also why on earth was "This raised to 1,783 in 2024" removed.[19]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]
Comments:
- Comment Want to state that user has not commented a single time on Talk:Social Security (United States), for the past 8 days insisting on reaching "consensus" while being content to continuously edit war. They were also blocked for battlegrounding a few days ago partially for this. I think this should be a case of WP:BOOMERANG. This user has also not stopped leveling personal attacks since being unblocked
added by editor who LIED in the edit summary.
They also have a long history of behavior like this. Des Vallee (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also I don't understand how you think admitting to stonewalling the article, and assuming bad faith immediately was in any way a good idea
discussion with them ALONE is useless
. Des Vallee (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC) - That's not why I was blocked. See the discussion on my Talk page for why I was blocked. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- You were blocked for battle grounding, and leveling personal attacks which you are still doing. Moreover assuming bad faith and refusing to even be involved in any sort of discussion is textbook disruptive editing. How on earth is anyone even supposed to do anything with a user who will refuse to engage with you no matter what you do? As an example bankrate.com which you keep insisting is unreliable is reliable has been pointed out you in the talk.
- you did the same thing at Talk:Capital accumulation where when the discussion didn't do your way you called aspirations on editors, and you are still using personal attacks and grudges to dictate your editing. You also only found these edits (mentioned during the ANI), after being reverted on an article I made that you TNT'd (Food inflation) which you were later blocked for. You then followed my edits and are refusing to do anything except revert the page. Des Vallee (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Declined For now since it's died down in the last day or so. However, while Avatar has the more checkered past, you both need to find some way to keep this from flaring up again—getting more editors involved in the discussion would help establish consensus, for one thing. Otherwise you should both be blocked at least from the page for a few days. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- you did the same thing at Talk:Capital accumulation where when the discussion didn't do your way you called aspirations on editors, and you are still using personal attacks and grudges to dictate your editing. You also only found these edits (mentioned during the ANI), after being reverted on an article I made that you TNT'd (Food inflation) which you were later blocked for. You then followed my edits and are refusing to do anything except revert the page. Des Vallee (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Kala7992 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Declined)
Page: Avengers: Doomsday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kala7992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282525833 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Jeff Sneider is not a reliable source, it literally said "better citation needed" since Sneider is not a good citation to use. Don't accuse me of edit warring again when you started this first."
- 23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282525221 by Adamstom.97 (talk) You did not show any proof, Sneider has not been discussed anywhere in this article. At least pinpoint where this "consensus" was reached to back up your claim, because it doesn't show up anywhere"
- 23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "You can't just say "this is confirmed by reliable sources" without actually providing any, and you started the edit war by undoing my edits. There is no consensus that Sneider is a reliable source anywhere here, that is literally your opnion and there are numerous instances where he gets rumors wrong."
- 23:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ I do not see any consensus on the talk page of this article on Jeff Sneider, as I stated already he is a scooper and not a reliable source whatsoever/"
- 23:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Cast */ Jeff Sneider is not a legitimate source, he is literally a scooper who spreads rumors, many of which turn out to be false. Until there is a legit citation Jeremy Renner shouldn't be on here"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 23:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Avengers: Doomsday."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 23:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Avengers: Doomsday "/* Please do NOT use Jeff Sneider/The InSneider as a source */ Reply"
Comments: Kala7922- I stopped editing on that article and conceded, why is a report against me necessary? Also I was not the one who started edit warring because by the user Adamstom.97 reverted my edits over and over again. I stopped editing on that article, and just want to be left alone. Once I saw the consensus on the talk page I stopped editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala7992 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed likely violations of the WP:3RR, which is why I filed this report. It does not matter if someone stops editing an article soon after if the violation still occurred. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- So do you want to get me banned from editing now?? What is your goal now that I stopped. I wasn't even being irrational, Jeff Sneider gets stuff wrong and I stopped once I saw consensus being reached. What else am I supposed to do to not get banned now? Idk why you're coming after me so hard for this as if I don't have any valid reason to be suspicious of Sneider at all. I made a mistake, but still I'm getting banned for it. Kala7992 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- buddy, maybe they'll WP:BLOCK you for a few days. you made no mistake, you chose to keep on reverting and removing, all the while your changes were being refuted, and only chose discussion after it became obvious that your method was going nowhere. Do give the Wikipedia:policies and guidelines a good look over before editing foolhardily. BarntToust 22:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Can I at least just be blocked from editing the Avengers Doomsday article as opposed to being blocked from the whole site? I messed up but it's too late now Kala7992 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Kala, this has nothing to do with my perspective of you as an editor. Violations of the 3RR ought to be reported regardless of whether there were some constructive edits or the material itself, solely because you reverted more than three times on the article in the span of 24 hours. I understand that this is frustrating, but Wikipedia has rules that need to be followed and enforced. I merely filed this report. It is up to the closing admin to determine what, if any, penalty is warranted. Blocks are typically imposed to prevent further or continuous disruptions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have also sent you a list of helpful links at your talk page (User talk:Kala7992) to help guide and inform you in your editing for future reference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Kala7992 (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- "what, if any, penalty is warranted" No penalty is warranted. – "Blocks are typically imposed to prevent further or continuous disruptions." That's correct. Blocks are never imposed as a penalty, only to prevent disruptions. See WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. In this case, it looks like Kala7992 apologized and promised not to edit-war in the future, so no block appears to be necessary or warranted. — Chrisahn (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have also sent you a list of helpful links at your talk page (User talk:Kala7992) to help guide and inform you in your editing for future reference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- buddy, maybe they'll WP:BLOCK you for a few days. you made no mistake, you chose to keep on reverting and removing, all the while your changes were being refuted, and only chose discussion after it became obvious that your method was going nowhere. Do give the Wikipedia:policies and guidelines a good look over before editing foolhardily. BarntToust 22:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- So do you want to get me banned from editing now?? What is your goal now that I stopped. I wasn't even being irrational, Jeff Sneider gets stuff wrong and I stopped once I saw consensus being reached. What else am I supposed to do to not get banned now? Idk why you're coming after me so hard for this as if I don't have any valid reason to be suspicious of Sneider at all. I made a mistake, but still I'm getting banned for it. Kala7992 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, Kala7992 broke 3RR like so many on the very, very high-profile page that became the intensely popular subject of insane levels editing yesterday. BarntToust 17:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- Declined as stale and moot per Chrisahn, above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
User:109.95.142.231 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: IP range blocked 3 months)
Page: Category:Visions (spirituality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.95.142.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC) ""
- 06:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC) ""
- 20:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC) ""
- 20:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Vision (spirituality)."
- 10:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC) "/* March 2025 */ WP:FTN notice"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 19:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Hallucinations */ new section"
Comments:
- Blocked Special:contributions/109.95.142.128/25 for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
User:*telltruther* reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Blocked indef)
Page: Pierre Kory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: *telltruther* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "Fixed misinformation"
- Consecutive edits made from 13:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC) to 13:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- 13:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "Fixed old, incorrect thinking"
- 13:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "/* External links */New and current, and now admitted information"
- Consecutive edits made from 11:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC) to 12:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- 11:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC) ""
- 11:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC) ""
- 11:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "/* External links */"
- 11:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "/* External links */Fixed misinformation, added new and current information"
- 11:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "/* External links */"
- 12:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 10:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC) to 11:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- 10:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC) ""
- 11:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "/* External links */"
- 11:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "/* External links */"
- 10:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC) ""
- 10:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC) ""
- 22:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 11:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Ivermectin has been proven to be especially effective if taken during early stages of COVID-19 */ Reply"
Comments:
User is repeatedly flipping the control (vandalism really) to say dumb stuff Bon courage (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- Bon courage is trying to control the narrative to his liking and refusing to post factual updated information. *telltruther* (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. NOTHERE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Kimpi reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: Blocked 24 hours indefinitely)
Page: The Final Experiment (expedition) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kimpi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 02:35, 26 March 2025
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:55, 28 March 2025
- 00:09, 29 March 2025
- 00:18, 29 March 2025
- 00:31, 29 March 2025
- 00:47, 29 March 2025
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:10, 29 March 2025
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 00:37, 29 March 2025
Comments:
User is spamming page with WP:ATTACK material, citing a random law firm's web page. Evidently a disgruntled flat earther who wants to "expose" the expedition. Falls within WP:CT/BLP topic area. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- The user has been blocked for 24h for edit-warring by Aoidh. I would have blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. @Bbb23: I highly considered it, but I'm hopeful a 24 hour block will be enough to cause them to move on to more productive editing. However, any reoccurrence or reintroduction of this content should result in an indef, which is something I'll try to keep an eye on. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- Now an indef for doubling down on this per Special:Permalink/1282863045#March 2025 2. - Aoidh (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Yubn678 and 2400:1a00:b040::/43 reported by User:Jay8g (Result: Page protected)
Page: Kaura (dance) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- Yubn678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2400:1a00:b040::/43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [21]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Yubn678:
IP:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Yubn678, IP
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Neither user has made any attempts to discuss
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Yubn678, IP
Comments:
The same users are also edit-warring on Ghatu (dance). Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
Page protected In full, for a day by ESKog. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
User:Transparencytruth reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Indeffed)
Page: Sophie Chandauka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Transparencytruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 13:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1283431267 by DeCausa (talk)"
- 13:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "justifiable edits, refering to subject's biography and substantiated articles"
- Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC) to 13:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- 12:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1283419953 by DeCausa (talk)"
- 12:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 12:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282570882 by DeCausa (talk)"
- 13:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "specified date, corrected erroneous timeline"
- 13:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "added citations and financial statements"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Repeated edits to Sophie Chandauka; edits are not all sourced - some have external links instead, not all text is supported by the refs that are given, and edits state what appears to be a particular point of view, with some opinion or WP:SYNTH. Editor has been warned by another editor about edit warring, but has re-added the information twice since then. There are relevant discussions on the Talk page which this user could join. Tacyarg (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Indeffed by another administrator. There's a lot of socking going on in that article. I've blocked another for socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- Fyi, I've put in for semi over at page protection, in case a passing admin would care to action. It's a BLP. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
User:MarioTalevski reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Snow White (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarioTalevski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1283483753 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
- 19:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1283482455 by Geraldo Perez (talk) Many review aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes, a film considered "mixed to negative" might fall roughly between 30% and 50%"
- 19:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "exact"
- 19:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 19:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "40%"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Snow White (2025 film)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked for 48 hours.-- Ponyobons mots 21:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
User:2600:387:15:2734:0:0:0:4 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page: Richard Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:387:15:2734:0:0:0:4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "Encyclopedic trivia"
- Consecutive edits made from 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC) to 20:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1283327380 by Alachuckthebuck (talk)"
- 20:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life and death */"
- 20:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life and death */"
- 20:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life and death */"
- 19:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life and death */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:Izno for disruptive editing. - Aoidh (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
User:2600:4040:5C5C:CF00:6143:34AB:5CBB:3652 reported by User:GommehGaming101 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Sticky Fingers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:4040:5C5C:CF00:6143:34AB:5CBB:3652 (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:
- 16:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Goats Head Soup."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
they have been consistently adding unnecessary information to other Rolling Stones album-related articles as well; see their edit history. I warned them on their talk page and reverted some of their edits but they did not listen. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 16:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
User:NicolasTn reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Partially blocked for 3 months; nominator partially blocked for 2 weeks)
Page: Amdo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NicolasTn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [33]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- August 2024
- September 2024
- December 2024
- January 2025
- February 2025
- March 2025
- April 2025
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73][74]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [76]
Comments:
Long term edit warring over several months. Reverted every edit by users Vacosea (talk · contribs), Qiushufang (talk · contribs), Amigao (talk · contribs) to their preferred version. Single purpose account with no history other than reverting on Amdo. Abandoned talk discussion after it became clear they did not have consensus, did not address any concerns, and consistently uses spurious reasons based on some version of go to talk, more talk needed, talk discussion not valid, or talk discussion not detailed enough for their reversions despite abandoning talk. Probably also a competence issue and does not understand basic Wiki policies [77]. Qiushufang (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Reported user Partially blocked – for a period of 3 months ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nominator Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
User:180.222.69.207 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page: Me & U (Cassie song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.222.69.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 03:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 03:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 03:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 03:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 03:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Me & U (Cassie song)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user keeps on trying to add the statement of this song being on “GTA 5 Non Stop Pop Radio”, without any source. They have been asked multiple times to provide a source and still refuse to do so.
It’s not that the claim is incorrect (the song is actually in GTA 5), but if there’s no reliable secondary source stating that fact, then it’s not notable enough for inclusion in the article. ApexParagon (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
User:2804:14C:5B76:8A98:0:0:0:742 reported by User:Sadrabp (Result: No violation; page protected for six months)
Page: Brenda Romero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2804:14C:5B76:8A98:0:0:0:742 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [78]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [83]
Comments:
The user repeatedly adds the phrase "is John Romero's wife" to the first sentence while refusing to engage in any discussion. Siev (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- Adding that I have requested page protection for the article for the same reason, as the IPs adding this text are changing. Tacyarg (talk) 19:16, 2 April 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. Page protection might be better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)- Page protected And that is in fact what I did when it was requested at RFPP. Six months. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
User:109.107.227.215 reported by User:Hy Brasil (Result: Blocked 24h)
Page: Never-Ending Man: Hayao Miyazaki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.107.227.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 20:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Reception */This level of detail is already sufficient for this topic, any other information doesn't relate to the content of the original work at all."
- 20:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
- 20:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 20:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Never-Ending Man: Hayao Miyazaki
Comments: 
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
User:AnExtraEditor reported by User:TarnishedPath (Result: Both blocked)
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:
- 18:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC) "Sean Carelton and Reid are who dismissed mass grave hoax. Please take to talk page if you have specific objections ("not an improvement" is not engaging in the edit explanation and an example of disruptive editing)."
- 02:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC) "policy compliant edit. lots of work went into this. like Moxy has done, plz engage on talk page with *specific* thoughts for fixes & improvements or issues. a ton of minor edits as well like formatting and wiki linking done here. so again, step by step let's work on it; blank slate reverts don't help any1!"
- 00:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC) "sorry finished edit after a reversion. computer getting laggy as hell. but this is mostly TarnishedPath's edits mixed with my full ones. again, let me know in talk page what ya think if any specifics."
- 23:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC) "making incremental edits so that it's easier to deal with. see Talk page for reasons why, and happy to discuss fixes or edits there. given the hostility on the page in the past, plz be specific in objections, and no personal attacks."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 02:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Canadian Indian residential school gravesites."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 13:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Do other editors here support the blank slate reversions of the recent edits? */ Reply"
Comments:
Editor was recently indeffed for this exact behaviour and then unblocked by @ToBeFree on the condition that the behaviour not continue. Refer to this discussion TarnishedPathtalk 00:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @ToBeFree as I don't think my ping above worked. TarnishedPathtalk 00:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Darkwebhistory reported by User:Pink Bee (Result: P-Blocked indefinitely)
Page: Archetyp Market (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkwebhistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: This is roughly the version they like to maintain, but it's not exact, since the reverts are all manual (see below).
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 18:54, 7 November 2024 "Restored vandalized wiki"
- 19:19, 10 November 2024 "The sources are current and valid, as they are cited in other articles. The changes made lack any evidence to support or refute the information. Currently, it stands as vandalism"
- 17:28, 25 November 2024 "This is the correct version. all new edits dont have any cites or anything . it is vandalism at this point"
- 16:47, 2 December 2024 "All other edits before hand are not correct. again vandalism"
- 02:43, 6 April 2025 "Going back to the basics and what was published when i created this wiki"
These are all manual visual reverts: the user appears to keep a copy of "their" version of the page somewhere, and reverts back to it by copying and pasting it back in.
Diff of edit warring warning: Warned by Grayfell on 3 December 2024 (diff).
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Grayfell pinged them on 11 November 2024 (diff) mentioning their edit warring behaviour, and received no response.
I (under my old username) first pinged them later that day (diff) in a message which mentioned the edit warring, but was actually addressed to Grayfell because it was about a mistaken revert of one of my edits. As it was not addressed to Darkwebhistory, I can understand that they did not respond.
However, on 25 November 2024 (diff), I directly addressed them, asking them to[p]lease stop reverting [...] the whole page
. Grayfell reminded them that theydo not own this article, and do not get to decide that edits you don't agree with are vandalism
. The conversation continued until 3 December, without any input from Darkwebhistory, despite them being pinged several times.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Here
Comments:
There appears to be a lot of WP:OWN going on here, with no attempt to engage in any discussion. There has been a lot of work to improve both the content and references of the article since the version that Darkwebhistory keeps reverting to, and they undo all of these changes every time they revert.
(I'd find this editing pattern problematic anyway, but there does seem to be another potential reason besides simple ownership. An IP user pointed out on 11 November 2024 (diff) that Darkwebhistory seems to have significant ties to the sources that are used in the version of the page they keep reinstating. Most significantly, darknetdiscussions.com (which has been down for some time now) seems to be their own website. I'm here about the editing, though, not that.)
Thanks. Pink Bee (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Partially blocked indefinitely. Aoidh (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
User:2407:4D00:7C02:1B5A:D597:7440:A940:5318 reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: Kublai Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2407:4D00:7C02:1B5A:D597:7440:A940:5318 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 08:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284218470 by Qiushufang (talk)- explain it properly for what reason you kept a false information, or you’re just afraid to discuss about it in Talk:Yuan dynasty "
- 07:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284218207 by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) - could you deny that the Yuan dynasty was merely a division of the Mongolian empire?"
- 07:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284217742 by Remsense (talk)- I’m talking about the correct information, Kublai was Mongolian !"
- 07:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284216786 by Remsense (talk)- okay let’s talk about it in talk: Yuan dynasty"
- 07:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284214961 by Remsense (talk)- The state was a Mongolian regime, China was just a region absorbed into the Empire by Mongol conquest"
- 07:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "The regime was a division of Mongolian empire, not properly Chinese"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 07:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Yuan China vs Mongol Yuan */ new section"
Comments:
- Partially blocked – for a period of 72 hours Aoidh (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Skr561 reported by User:shadowwarrior8 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours for violating 1RR)
Page: 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skr561 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [84]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC): ("There is no evidence that pro-Assad elements massacred civilians...")
- 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC): ("The Human Rights and Humanitarian Action Monitoring Committee,...")
- 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC): ("No edit summary")
- 18:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC): ("No edit summary")
- 20:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC): ("No edit summary")
- 09:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC): ("No edit summary")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [89]
Comments: The new comer user Skr561 has fiercely engaged in editwarring tactics in the page, despite multiple warnings and attempts to discuss in the talk page. Furthermore, Skr561's last 5 editwarring reverts occurred within a period of less than 21 hours.
Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours since this article is under community sanctions and both went way across the 1RR line. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
User:HistoryofIran reported by User:TarantaBabu (Result: No violation, article protected)
Page: Safavid Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Safi-ad-Din Ardabili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryofIran (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:
- 20:01, 6 April 2025 HistoryofIran deleted the edits I previously contributed to the article without providing any justification
- 19:48, 6 April 2025
- 19:43, 6 April 2025 I request administrator review of these cross-page reverts and the editor’s refusal to engage in genuine consensus-building, as this pattern risks harming the encyclopedia’s integrity.
- 23:32, 13 February 2025 @ Safi-ad-Din Ardabili This revert contradicts Wikipedia’s policy of good faith collaboration and resolving disputes through discussion. I urged @HistoryofIran to either justify the revert or engage in consensus-building. However, HistoryofIran didn't.
In February, after HistoryofIran reverted my edit, I attempted to seek consensus on the talk page but was unsuccessful. I initiated a discussion on the talk page to seek consensus with @HistoryOfIran. However, as documented on the talk page, it was not possible to reach mutual agreement with @HistoryOfIran."
According to Wikipedia:Edit warring "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers."
I have escalated this matter to the [noticeboard] for further review. Given the complexity of the issue, one editor provided partial input as a third-party perspective. However, this partial contribution did not resolve the underlying dispute or establish a clear consensus, as evidenced by the ongoing discussion.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [ 19:48, 6 April 2025 ] "Despite all my efforts, HistoryofIran issued an edit warring warning to deter me, which I believe was intended to intimidate rather than resolve the dispute constructively."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [ 13:20, 14 February 2025 ]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [90]
Comments:
Given the lack of progress, I request administrator intervention or mediation to resolve this matter in accordance with Wikipedia’s dispute resolution guidelines. TarantaBabu (talk)
- More WP:GAMING by TarantaBabu, I didn't even violate WP:3RR. As is already apparent, diff from February is about a completely different article (Safi-ad-Din Ardabili), where I attempted to talk to them [91], which was futile, as they were more interested in being combatative, seemingly more interested in getting a "gotcha" moment against me, just like now, just like in the noticeboard [92] where they "escalated" (more WP:GAMING) matters to and suddenly vanished after my response, which included calling them out for blatantly lying to make me look bad, as they are doing here. I'm sure TarantaBabu was already aware of this, but they themselves have reverted four times in just one of those articles (Safavid Iran) article since March [93] [94] [95] [96] in relation to the same subject. So by their logic, they should appear even worse off here. But then again, they only need that "gotcha" moment against me, editing collaboratively seems secondary, if not less. I can go into depths about this if needed, but that would perhaps be more relevant in a WP:ANI report of them. Anyhow, I would argue WP:OUCH here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." TarantaBabu (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello TarantaBabu, which response do you expect to this report? Page protection? You both being blocked, which is a higher damage to the established editor than to your 13-edits-per-year account? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Why should I be blocked? Just because I don't have edits in English Wikipedia, does that make me wrong on this report. The edits are there. Cited, sourced. Those are contributes to the articles. They fit with WP policies. HistoryofIran violates Wikipedia:Ownership of content by reverting my edits. HistoryofIran is removing my contributions through edit warring.
- A thorough review of edits, talk page, and noticeboard will resolve this dispute. TarantaBabu (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- A good chunk of your 66 edits is your WP:GAMING reports of me (you have already made 2) and ceaseless WP:ASPERSIONS like this comment. Can you please stop? HistoryofIran (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello TarantaBabu, which response do you expect to this report? Page protection? You both being blocked, which is a higher damage to the established editor than to your 13-edits-per-year account? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- No violation, article protected. The only article at play here is Safavid Iran on which both editors have reverted three times, so I have protected it for a couple of weeks for discussion to take place. I note that the article has been semi-protected multiple times and has attracted various sockpuppets in the past. There is only one revert on the other article (see WP:BRD), so nothing to do there. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Eeismail reported by User:Hypnôs (Result: 48 hours)
Page: New Kingdom of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eeismail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [97]
Diffs of the user's reverts: 4 IP edits with similar content preceded these:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [108]
Comments:
Hypnôs (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
User:LimeorLemon reported by User:Ogress (Result: Indef )
Page: Bob Avakian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LimeorLemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 02:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC) to 02:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- 02:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "slanderous edit removed"
- 02:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 16:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC) "slander, once again"
- 17:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1283875751 by Sircheezball (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User's only edits are of Bob Avakian with a side comment on Avakian's RCP. User is edit warring and others have given warning Ogress 02:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely from the article. The user has a sustained history of reverting edits and removing content with the edit summary "vandalism", contrary to WP:NOTVANDAL. Also, claiming exemptions because of BLP can be controversial, and still result in a block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Avatar317 reported by User:Ms5678t (Result: Nominator indefinitely blocked)
Page: Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avatar317 (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:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit&oldid=1284656038
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit&oldid=1283511942
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit&oldid=1283510516
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit&oldid=1282235092
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Low-Income_Housing_Tax_Credit
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avatar317
Comments:
I have been accused of being a COI editor (I am only an affordable housing advocate) and all edits have been reverted by this editor repeatedly without attempts to discuss.
- Nominator and User:Palmtrees3636 blocked as socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
User:35.139.154.158 reported by User:GommehGaming101 (Result: Blocked one month)
Page: List of national fruits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 35.139.154.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 17:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC) to 17:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- 17:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284781898 by Doll Allison (talk) it was all unsourced/dubious...feel free to re-add with sources"
- 17:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "WP:CITOGENESIS...the source specifically talks about looking this up on google and getting a result from wikipedia"
- 17:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "the WP:BURDEN for finding a source is on those who wish to add or restore content...feel free to re-add entries with citations...especially bad is when a source is unreliable and/or doesn't back up the claim made"
- 17:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "not supported by the source (which lists a different variety than pictured anyway)"
- 17:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "missed one"
- Consecutive edits made from 17:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC) to 17:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- 17:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "unsourced"
- 17:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "rm unsourced entries"
- 17:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "rm entries sourced to symbolhunt.com...some random website, not an RS"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 17:45, 9 April 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of national fruits."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 17:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC) on List of national fruits "Undid revision 1284779652 by 35.139.154.158 (talk) stop it. Take it to the talk page."
Comments:
not really sure if I was supposed to do anything else but this person refused to discuss on the talk page after I asked them to stop edit warring. These edits were probably good faith, but still edit warring and I think they also violate 3RR. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 18:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one month. Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
User:2600:1700:9a10:8bd0:23e9:f1ce:25af:4d97 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Led Zeppelin (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1700:9a10:8bd0:23e9:f1ce:25af:4d97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [111]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [112] ("It is the 12th you 5 IQ mouthbreathers. It's right on the back of the sleeve. LedZeppelin.com even has it as the 12th. Sunday releases were uncommon, but they did happen.")
- [113] ("I can do this all day, Brett. Google the release date, dipshit.")
- [114] ("Fixed Brett's dumb mistake again. Brett I'm making you a founder of ICP on their Wikipedia page because you're the most insane clown I've ever met. You clearly don't know shit about Led Zeppelin and your quoted source is a fan fiction biography full of inaccuracies. Check the date on what Spotify says for the album.")
- [115] ("Removed Brett's fan fiction source that he loves to pretend is facts. Are we trying to tell the truth on here or just clowing around, Brett?")
Comments:
Edit-warring over a minor release date, and personally attacking Tkbrett with wild abandon. I've got no part in this feud, I just improved the article to GA status. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Eeismail reported by User:A. Parrot (Result: Indeffed)
Page: New Kingdom of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eeismail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [122]
Comments: Eeismail has repeatedly inserted an improperly sourced land area figure into the article despite requests from multiple users to stop. User:Ritchie333 gave a temporary article block and final warning, but since then Eeismail has simply tried to insert the figure into the infobox instead of the body text. A. Parrot (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely I warned them that's what would happen if they carried on with discussion, and so it's three strikes and you're out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Sbaio reported by User:JWNimble (Result: No violation)
Page: Dylan Strome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sbaio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Carlson_(ice_hockey)&diff=prev&oldid=1284944660 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1284755139 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilya_Sorokin&diff=prev&oldid=1284704380 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Wilson_(ice_hockey)&diff=prev&oldid=1284755784
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1284755139
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1284755368
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1284944532
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dylan_Strome&diff=prev&oldid=1285002445
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sbaio&diff=prev&oldid=1285012075
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASbaio&oldid=prev&diff=1285012160
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments:
I have not broke the WP:3RR rule. The editor has not tried to resolve the dispute and keeps reinstating his edits. Editor's comments/edit summaries are uncivil. In addition, all of these additions are purely trivial and recentism (and fanboyism]]. – sbaio 03:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have left comments on talk page to try and resolve the dispute, they have only been deleted. Editor's primary motivation for reverting edits is due to personal bias. JWNimble (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- This and this are surely not "try to resolve the dispute". Stop lying, because anybody can see your edits. – sbaio 04:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- You both could do with assuming more good faith, and finding agreement on the talk page. I suggest dispute resolution. Anyway, 3RR refers to edits in a 24 hour period, which this isn't. PhilKnight (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Silvi2197 reported by User:StAnselm (Result: Partial block for a week)
Page: Trumpet of Patriots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Silvi2197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1285008254 by StAnselm (talk)"
- 02:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1285007834 by StAnselm (talk)"
- 02:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1285006932 by StAnselm (talk)"
- 02:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 01:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284997999 by StAnselm (talk)"
- 01:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 02:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Trumpet of Patriots."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 02:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Far-right? */ new section"
Comments:
All of these were arguably BLP violations, the last four certainly were. StAnselm (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have partially blocked Silvi2197 for a week from the article. I haven't blocked StAnselm, but I would counsel them to be more cautious in future as their claimed exception to edit warring is shaky at best. PhilKnight (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I’ll admit I am new on here and wasn’t too sure how to engage on the talk page I responded by adding a source and I have explained my rationale on the article’s talk page I will fully admit that the first four were probably not okay and I was clearly in the wrong with them but i did find a reputable and fact checked source and revised a few other times and worked out what I was doing with the talk page.
- i am happy to take the block and promise to be more careful in the future however I do stand by the accuracy of my edit and the source provided but I will leave it at this. Silvi2197 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight: you don't see the problem quoting a blog talking about the "fascist, prejudicial, and greedy policies of the dictatorial-based leader of the United States, ‘President’ [sic] Trump"? That is screamingly obvious BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- The information in the article is about the political policies of said person and not their personal life or private life this is a completely different area of topic as far as I can ascertain from the relevant BLP policy. My source is primarily giving a dissertation on the political policies of a party and does not seek to explore or imply anything personal
- the admins are free to correct me if this is not the case but it is my understanding that political policy is not something which is considered biographical in nature. Silvi2197 (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think calling someone far right could be a BLP violation. PhilKnight (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- My source is calling the political policies far right is that not just a description of the policies of the party and/or leader? the article is fact checked by legal experts and the party in question is directly associated with trumpism which should be noted that the trumpism page on Wikipedia describes trumpism as a right wing to far-right ideology too. Silvi2197 (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think calling someone far right could be a BLP violation. PhilKnight (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just a reminder, our BLP policy says, "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis original). StAnselm (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. PhilKnight (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight: you don't see the problem quoting a blog talking about the "fascist, prejudicial, and greedy policies of the dictatorial-based leader of the United States, ‘President’ [sic] Trump"? That is screamingly obvious BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
User:148.59.73.62 reported by User:Consarn (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: List of generation II Pokémon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 148.59.73.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "Either leave it alone OR put it back"
- 19:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 22:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC) "/* List of Pokémon */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
admittedly going off-track, but it's pretty clear that this ip intends on disregarding everything to keep their claims in, so... consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 19:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to note that the template you used to warn the IP user is incorrect. You should've used this template instead. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- it was used before it went into full-blown edit warring, but fair consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 19:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Just to note that the template you used to warn the IP user is incorrect. You should've used this template instead. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
User:37.19.109.49 reported by User:Patrick Welsh (Result: 1 week partial block from Tamara Kalinic)
Page: Tamara Kalinic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.19.109.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 16:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- Consecutive edits made from 16:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 16:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 16:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 16:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 16:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 16:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Consecutive edits made from 14:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 15:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "Not adhering to a neutral point of view (UV 0.1.6)"
- 16:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Not sure exactly what the problem is here, but the IP has some issue with ethnicity they will not discuss at talk. Patrick (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP from editing the Tamara Kalinic article for 1 week. They are encouraged to use the talk page to establish consensus for their changes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
User:ShayonD19 reported by User:United Blasters (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Disney Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ShayonD19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Consecutive edits made from 07:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC) to 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- 07:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 07:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 07:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */ Removed BTVI as it was never owned by Disney or Star India"
- 08:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 08:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 08:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- Consecutive edits made from 05:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC) to 06:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- 05:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 05:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 05:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 05:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 05:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 05:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 05:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 05:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 05:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* International */"
- 05:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* International */"
- 06:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- Consecutive edits made from 08:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC) to 09:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- 08:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 08:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
- 09:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Upcoming channels */"
- 09:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 09:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Defunct channels */"
- 13:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC) "/* On-air channels */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 06:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Disney Star."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Vestigium Leonis & User:BMWF reported by User:Sariel Xilo (Result: Stale)
Page: Forspoken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- Vestigium Leonis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BMWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 17:58, 10 April 2025
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 04:27, 11 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis updated article
- 21:20, 11 April 2025: BMWF reverts both Vestigium Leonis & another editor's update
- 03:00, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
- 13:18, 12 April 2025: NutmegCoffeeTea reverted Vestigium Leonis
- 13:27, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted NutmegCoffeeTea
- 13:41, 12 April 2025: NutmegCoffeeTea reverted Vestigium Leonis
- 13:42, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted NutmegCoffeeTea
- 13:58, 12 April 2025: BMWF reverted Vestigium Leonis
- 14:02, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
- 14:09, 12 April 2025: BMWF reverted Vestigium Leonis
- 14:12, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
- 14:22, 12 April 2025: BMWF reverted Vestigium Leonis
- 14:33, 12 April 2025: Vestigium Leonis reverted BMWF
- 15:43, 12 April 2025 NutmegCoffeeTea reverted Vestigium Leonis
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:12, 12 April 2025: BMWF warned Vestigium Leonis
- 14:36, 12 April 2025: Sariel Xilo warned Vestigium Leonis
- 14:36, 12 April 2025: Sariel Xilo warned BMWF
- 15:49, 12 April 2025: Sariel Xilo warned NutmegCoffeeTea
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- User:FMSky reopened a past discussion at Talk:Forspoken#Lead
- FMSky & BMWF (along with a handful of comments by other editors) discussed this at User talk:Sergecross73#Longterm EW (not sure why this is where the discussion occured) where FMSky provided the following diffs as examples of this edit war going on & off since November 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:
- 15:26, 12 April 2025: Notice for Vestigium Leonis
- 15:27, 12 April 2025: Notice for BMWF
Comments:
I haven't edited much on Forspoken but I did see the edit war reheat & added to FMSky's RPP report. Both User:Vestigium Leonis & User:BMWF blew past 3RR during this edit war; User:NutmegCoffeeTea only made 2 reverts so I included for context but I'm not reporting them. In terms with my experiences with the involved editors, I haven't had any issues previously with User:Vestigium Leonis & they apologized after I added the edit war notice. However, BMWF and I have had content disputes before primarily at Dragon Age: The Veilguard & more recently at Assassin's Creed Shadows. When dealing with BMWF, I've noticed they are quick to revert with anything they disagree with even if consensus disagrees while claiming they are following WP:BRD. In the case of Veilguard, I went to WP:DRN in December 2024 in an attempt to deescalate and they refused to engage; when another editor & I finished the process and I implemented the consensus from DRN, they returned to revert saying we didn't have their consensus (this then lead to an RfC). In general, I've noticed that BMWF does not agree with any policy interpretation if it goes against the edits they want to implement even if multiple editors have explained why something is supported by policy & that consensus does not mean every editor involved has to agree. To me, this edit war at Forspoken appears to be part of a larger pattern of disruptive editing by BMWF while Vestigium Leonis simply lost their cool in a single incident. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC) (Added in ANEW notice diffs Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC))
- I acknowledge that I went too far with the reverts, there is nothing else I want to add or justify on that part. I’ve dealt with a similar situation on the Veilguard article, which probably played a part in how things went (along with a bad night’s sleep). I agree with Sariel's explanation on here about the way BMWF, and on a smaller scale also the other user NutMegCoffeeTea (who just did the third revert as well), handle the editing on here. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- I also acknowledge that things went further than ideal. Lowering the temperature here would be beneficial for everyone. BMWF (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- One more point I would like to add to my comment — both users have a tendency to just revert everything, which was quite frustrating as well. For example, including the OpenCritic score doesn't require consensus, nor does adding missing sales data of the game's performance in Japan. If there had been an RfC or some kind of ongoing content change restriction, it would be understandable — but that was not the case here. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm pretty much a complete observer here, but upon reviewing this is frankly ridiculous. @Sariel Xilo, you probably should've added NutmegCoffeeTea too, as I'm sure you know it's possible to participate in edit warring without breaking 3RR, and I think this is prime example. BMWF and Nutmeg were just in a whole conflict on the AE board (it was a mess, trust me you're better off not reading it) where this exact thing happened, [123] and so they should be more than aware of edit warring policy. The fact that they both did this flagrantly so recently afterwards either raises legitimate WP:CIR issues of being unable to read the plain text of WP:EDITWAR or is a pretty serious indicator of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I never do this, but unless these guys show up and inform us that they're gonna completely 180º their behavior, this needs to be addressed. Just10A (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just10A is not an observer and has defended FMSky's discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors.[124] BMWF (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you're incorrect. I have not interacted with any of the content here with anyone. I found FMSky's AE post as an observer, commented on it, and that led me here, equally as a complete observer. If you think I'm misrepresenting, take it to AN. Otherwise, I'd consider TBF letting you off with a warning to be very fortunate and I'd start following policy if I were you. Just10A (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just10A is not an observer and has defended FMSky's discriminatory comments about the identities of other editors.[124] BMWF (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- NutmegCoffeeTea, BMWF: Your views on this please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Vestigium Leonis, Sariel Xilo, and Just10A all share content positions. Just10A offered defense for FMSky[125], who was recently topic banned from GENSEX for implying that editors who identify as LGBTQ or showcase pronouns shouldn't participate. FMSky then violated his topic ban with this edit[126], and then Vestigium Leonis reinserted FMSky's edit 7 times. Vestigium Leonis is a significantly more experienced editor and the idea that he just "simply lost his cool" and did 7 reverts, as justified by Sariel Xilo, doesn't sit right with me. It does sound like Sariel is trying to skew the deck and target those he has editing disagreements with. I hope I was able to steer both Vestigium Leonis and BMWF to the talk page. I think everyone here can easily use the talk page and I'd like to see that, as everyone seems smart. I think discussion can resolve anything and there is probably a lot that everyone agrees on. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Before Just10A's comments above, I was unaware there was a larger ongoing conflict between you, BMWF & FMSky (looks like there was a retaliatory sock investigation started by FMSky after they were brought to WP:AE). I'm uninvolved in whatever edits FMSky did to get a GENSEX topic ban & I oppose queer/transphobia. I came across FMSky's RPP request when Twinkle alerted me, saw FMSky participated at Talk:Forspoken#Lead by pinging editors who have been involved in content disputes at the article (talk page also shows both BMWF & Vestigium Leonis discussing/disagreeing with each other on April 11-12 during the edit war), and that they went to an admin's talk to complain about the edit warring at Forspoken.
- I'm hard-pressed to think of what "content positions" I share with Just10A as I'm fairly sure our editing has never overlapped. Vestigium previously agreed with points I made at the Veilguard RfC although I had forgotten about that when I made my report here; otherwise, I don't think we've overlapped much in the areas we edit nor participated in many of the same discussions which would indicate similar editing philosophies. BMWF & I do overlap a bit in terms of video game articles we edit so I've kept an eye on their editing patterns and it seems to me that they are quick to turn things into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I tried to lower my engagement with BMWF after good faith attempts to deescalate didn't go anywhere a few months ago (while no one is required to participate in DRN, I don't think it is great to refuse to participate and then afterwards say they don't agree with the consensus & argue it wasn't the right venue anyway to have a discussion).
- In this case, I saw the edit war at Forespoken and I reported both Vestigium & BMWF because they went past 3RR & didn't report NutmegCoffeeTea because they were at 2 reverts when I initially made the report. At the end of the day, the issue here is less about whether or not the content should be included at Forespoken but more about the immediate jump to edit war behavior when you've been reverted. While BMWF often says BRD in their edit summaries when reverting, WP:BRD-NOT states: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. This applies equally to bold editors and to reverters". (As an aside, please use they/them for me per WP:EDPRONOUNS; thanks!) Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- The insinuation that Vestigium Leonis "simply lost his cool" for 7 reverts, while at the same time trying this hard to strike BMWF because they disagree with you on content issues on other articles, is the only example of battleground behavior I'm seeing here. I think everyone just wants to help (myself included!) and I know the talk page can resolve anything that comes up. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- For transparency I want to note that Sariel Xilo has a conflict of interest, and that Sariel Xilo, Vestigium Leonis, and FMSky made the same edits on Veilguard, which is another game that has been targeted by GamerGate for perceived diversity. This recent incident on Forspoken was started when FMSky ignored his topic ban to do the same editing. The temperature should be lower and I'm okay with collaborating with Vestigium Leonis on steps to achieve that. BMWF (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just a quick question. I'm not seeing anything that would make the Forspoken article fall under this particular topic ban. There's no content, category, or anything else in regards to the topic ban. I'm not trying to defend others' actions on this topic, but bringing it up here feels a bit misleading. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just to leave a record here, my edits at Veilguard clearly show that I'm not acting in support of GamerGate - I not only developed & added the reception paragraph on the queer/trans storylines, I also went to bat to defend its inclusion in the article along with the inclusion of more general reviews by queer/trans reporters/sources. I've been very consistent there and elsewhere that as editors we need to maintain a NPOV which means we include criticism from legitimate sources and otherwise ignore the manufactured social media outrage. The good faith assumption on different editors making similar edits on an article is that is the direction consensus has gone so I'm not sure why BMWF is trying to paint me as part of some coordinated cabal. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. If the article stays as is for now and the discussion on the talk page continues, I think we can close the edit warring report here. I see accusations about topic ban violations and other misconduct above, but these should be handled separately, perhaps at WP:ANI if needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
User:91.242.155.157 reported by User:LaundryPizza03 (Result: Blocked six months)
Page: Chucky season 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.242.155.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [127]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by CycloneYoris
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [137]
Comments:
Violation of MOS:EUPH: changing "have sex" in an episode summary to "sleep together". Multiple users reverted them, including myself on the eighth edit. The user does not use edit summaries, and continued after receiving a disruptive-editing warning from CycloneYoris between the ninth and tenth edits, which is why I don't think communication on the talk page will be productive. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of six months Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
User:141.154.49.21 reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Page County, Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 141.154.49.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: revert by Adakiko, 12:00, 3 April
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 23:23 13 April ES: Not unsourced, as I will explain in talk. By the way, when you start an edit war you're the one that needs to stop before 3 reverts
- 21:34, 11 April ES: Undid revision 1285127896 by Gaismagorm (talk) All of these claims are cited in the huge table below, as I said before. Claim 1 is cited by the Virginia election maps, Claims 2 and 3 are both cited by the table below.
- 21:22, 11 April ES: Feel free to list the exact claims that need to be cited (there really aren't any) or add citations yourself. This is simply an analysis of the Virginian election map. And if you bothered to check the citation, you'd find that it's Virginia as a whole - meaning that my claims are, in fact, cited.
- 21:05 11 April ES: You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. If you look at the numbers, 76% > any other of the numbers listed. Crazy, right? The other parts, namely that the south was democratic before becoming republican, is fairly well known. If you would like to add citations yourself to this widely known phenomenon, go ahead
- 16:53 11 April ES: The giant sourced table directly below the words is the source.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:56, 12 April
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Page County, Virginia#Politics section edits on 11 April 2025
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: AN3 notice 04:28, 14 April
Comments:
Anon does not appear willing to discuss, just tells others they are wrong. Reverted twice by Gaismagorm (talk · contribs) and thrice by Adakiko (talk · contribs)
Anon did finally add sources here - 23:48, 13 April 2025 no ES, after their last revert, but without discussion nor any attempt to get consensus.
Some of the anon's content is sourced, other appears to be (or was) unsourced, OR, or synthesis. I find some of the anon's other edits dubious for similar issues. Adakiko (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
User:TL9027 reported by User:Seasider53 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Glossop line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TL9027 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [138]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - I'm not part of the war; I asked both parties to resolve on the Glossop line talk page in this edit summary, but TL9027 ignored it
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [144]
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Partially blocked from Glossop line. Acroterion (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
User:2605:B100:B47:586B:20E2:91F5:D124:F961 reported by User:GommehGaming101 (Result: /64 blocked a week /41 blocked a year as an LTA)
Page: Ivan Demidov (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:B100:B47:586B:20E2:91F5:D124:F961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC) "NHL statistics are not updated until season at hand has completed play. The user in question has incorrectly ised the SAME CITATION three times over in the span of the same paragraph along with spacing issues. STOP IT NOW."
- 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC) "NHL statistics are not updated until season at hand has completed play. DO NOT REVERT. The information includes about Demidov's early years in Russia is also redudant"
- 14:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC) "NHL statistics are not updated until season at hand has completed play"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 14:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Ivan Demidov (ice hockey)."
- 14:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ivan Demidov (ice hockey)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC) on Ivan Demidov (ice hockey) "Reverted 1 edit by 2605:B100:B47:586B:20E2:91F5:D124:F961 (talk): That information is not redundant- if you'd like to discuss removing it, please take it to the talk page first."
Comments:
Told them to discuss on the article's talk page if they'd like to remove content; they ignored my advice and reverted me twice. It does not matter that NHL stats are not updated until the end of the season in this case as those were not the only information the user removed. This user is probably on the verge of violating WP:3RR. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 14:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of
one weekone year The range2605:B100:B47:586B:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))2605:B100:B00:0:0:0:0:0/41 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). I have extended both the range and the time since it appears this is very likely another sock of WP:LTA/HABS. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Chessarole reported by User:MasterBlasterofBarterTown (Result: Blocked)
Page: The Washington Free Beacon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chessarole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [145]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [151]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [152]
Comments:
While this may look like two different users, its pretty obviously the same person MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Both
Confirmed to Renamed user f035ad1deaac4978eb5af16869ff3dc8. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Somalizoro reported by User:Cookiemonster1618 (Result: Blocked)
Page: Somali people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- Somalizoro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [153]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [159]
Somalizoro continues to make disruptive edits on the Somali people article claiming the data estimates and figures are old while also changing population figures and claiming they are found on the cited sources when they are not. The user also is edit warring on that page as was shown with their recent edits. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – 31 hours for disruption. The user is edit warring to insert unsourced information. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Put CTOPS notice on talk page of article as it is indef-semi'ed. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Nathanstinehart reported by User:Butlerblog (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Baptist successionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nathanstinehart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [160]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 00:25, 17 April 2025 [161]
- 02:56, 17 April 2025 [162]
- 04:26, 17 April 2025 [163]
- 18:10, 17 April 2025 [164]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [168]
Comments:
User Nathanstinehart is POV pushing on mutliple articles, removing sourced content, using primary sources, and generally being objected to by multiple editors. On Baptist successionism, they were reverted by another editor, then replaced their original edit along with more. I reverted back to the original state and asked them to discuss on the article talk page as well as use edit summaries to explain their edits. They evidently feel that there is no need to discuss because they went up to 3RR yesterday and then came back today to reinstate their original edit again - and again with no edit summary and no willingness to justify their changes with other involved editors. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
User:DangNgH6464 reported by User:Paper9oll (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: The Odd of Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DangNgH6464 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [169]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [170]
- [171]
- [172]
- [173]
- [174]
- [175]
- [176] (WP:LOUTSOCK to restore back)
- [177] (WP:LOUTSOCK to restore back)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [178]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [179] (created by Nkon21)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [180]
Comments:
To the reviewing admin, do note that this reply by DangNgH6464 claiming the last diff to be of a different person which isn't convincing given the highly coincidental timing. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Then check the IP, don't accuse me of things I didn't do, I won't fix it without citing a reliable source. That's all. DangNgH6464 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Accusing this user 2001:EE0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 of being me without any evidence, look at the articles this user frequently edits, it has nothing to do with me. What are you trying to accuse me of, why are you trying to create fake evidence? DangNgH6464 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Tomlanes5576 reported by User:Borgenland (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: President of Namibia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), President of Tanzania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomlanes5576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [181]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [195]
Comments:
This report was made following this pending report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Tomlanes5576. I believe that the issue mentioned is more attuned to this noticeboard. Note that said user has never responded to any call-outs, whether on their talk page or in the ANI itself. Borgenland (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked, edit-warrior, sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
User:GlowstoneUnknown reported by User:Rhobabwe (Result: Nominator indefinitely blocked)
Page: New Zealand First (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GlowstoneUnknown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Zealand_First&direction=prev&oldid=1278677948: [196]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Zealand_First#Ideology_format: [diff]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GlowstoneUnknown: [diff]
Comments:
This report makes absolutely no sense for multiple reasons.
The diffs provided here are from months ago and don't even come close to a WP:3RR violation, the first one chronologically was from 6 January and was self-reverted almost immediately, the second one was from 28 January and remained in place for 38 hours, and the last two were the only ones to even occur within a 24-hour timeframe, and were directly followed up by a talk page discussion. It's also strange to me why this would be brought up during an active content dispute that I believed was about to begin the process of being solved, but it appears as if, in place of replying in the talk page discussion, Rhobabwe has opted to report me for an alleged WP:3RR violation and take this minor content dispute to WP:ARC in place of continuing the discussion
I'd like to point out that there is a stronger case against Rhobabwe in terms of WP:3RR, as although they haven't performed more than 3 edits within a 24-hour timeframe, the following diffs show them restoring the same edit 4 times within the span of just over 32 hours (as [[WP:3RR WP:3RR says,Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring
) and note how Rhobabwe only going went to the article's talk page after 1) being prompted and 2) restoring their contentious edit (notice how their first edit on the talk page was made after restoring their edit):
I'd also like to bring up the fact that Rhobabwe was recently indefinitely blocked and only unblocked on a WP:ROPE just over 2 months ago with the warning that[...] you should understand that any further violations will result in an immediate re-block without further notice
. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nominator indefinitely blocked. Filing an arbitration request was the last straw.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
User:2604:3D08:5E7A:6A00:DD4A:13BF:B6EC:FFFD reported by User:McSly (Result: Blocked 1 year)
Page: Talk:2025 Canadian federal election (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2604:3D08:5E7A:6A00:DD4A:13BF:B6EC:FFFD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286455097 by Masterhatch (talk) please discuss ur reverts"
- 00:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286453918 by Masterhatch (talk) discuss ur reverts"
- 00:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286452623 by McSly (talk) please discuss"
- 00:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286434084 by Masterhatch (talk) please discuss before reverting"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 00:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Using talk page as forum."
- 00:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 00:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286451612 by 2604:3D08:5E7A:6A00:DD4A:13BF:B6EC:FFFD (talk) Not a Forum"
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 1 year ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
User:NikeCage68 reported by User:SimplyLouis27 (Result: No violation)
Page: List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NikeCage68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [205]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [209]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [210]
Comments:
I tried to make an edit at List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers and was reverted by User:NikeCage68. I requested on the article talk page that they discuss the matter with me, Talk:List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers#WADE & CHAPMAN, and left a talkback to that request on their user talk page User talk:NikeCage68#List of 2025–26 Premiership Rugby transfers. Since leaving these they reverted me again, still without discussing. The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit without discussing it with me disruptive editing? I have had previous issues with the user not discussing, see [211], there response to this was by removing the request for discussion, [212], and ignoring me on Talk:List of 2024–25 Premiership Rugby transfers. I did not report this to AN then as they did no further reverts of my edits. This user also does not use edit summaries despite myself requesting them to do so. They have also previously been warned about possible Sockpuppetry. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:29, 20 April 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. This honestly sounds more like a matter for AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Guddu Chatterjee reported by User:United Blasters (Result: No violation)
Page: Indian Super League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guddu Chatterjee (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:
- 17:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Mohun Bagan Super Giants."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Sid95Q reported by User:117.204.27.71 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
Sid95Q: User-multi error: no username detected (help).
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
- [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
the said user, User:Sid95Q, has been operating a perceived monopoly on the article at discussion, reverting every single edit they can encounter for nearly 8 years, dating back to September 7, 2017, a period during which they have seemingly bullied multiple users, while disallowing any growth on this article. The subject of this page is a mildly popular TV show from two decades ago when India had no substantial presence to helm internet citations regarding it, and hence, absolutely nothing can be added by this user's logic. That being said, addition of the cast member Mandira Bedi should not even require a citation given that's not how "cast" section works. The user has also referred to me as Anant-morgan sock, a very disparaging remark after another user from years ago who had dared to make similar changes. This is outrageous.
- 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) 20:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
User:PEPSI697 reported by User:2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (Result: 24 hours )
Page: Gracie Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PEPSI697 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [214]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
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: [219]
Comments:
I saw that some incoherent, low quality text had been added to an article, so I removed it. This user has reverted four times in 13 minutes to restore the poor quality text. They have made a series of false claims in their edit summaries ("no reliable source","vandalism","unexplained content removal"), and have relentlessly spammed my talk page with template messages. They have not at any point attempted to provide a good faith explanation of why they are reverting my edits. 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked for 24 hours. I personally agree with the IP's edits, for what it's worth. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
User:2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 reported by User:Stickymatch (Result: Stale)
Page: Gracie Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 07:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286830250 by Stickymatch (talk) read the edit summaries. Do not revert edits that you haven't bothered to even look at."
- 07:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286829878 by PEPSI697 (talk) it was not unexplained. stop reverting edits that you haven't bothered to even look at."
- 07:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286829673 by PEPSI697 (talk) it was an extremely constructive edit. stop reverting if you cannot be bothered to read and understand what has changed."
- 07:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286829485 by PEPSI697 (talk) reverted single-purpose account dedicated to reverting edits as fast as possible, evidently without bothering to look at them"
- Consecutive edits made from 07:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC) to 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- 07:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286388694 by 76.157.15.92 (talk)"
- 07:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286729916 by Rodw (talk) undoing to undo the harmful edit that this improved"
- 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286431745 by Wiiformii (talk) undoing to undo the harmful edit that this improved"
- 07:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1286388328 by 76.157.15.92 (talk) cut badly written, sometimes incoherent text"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 07:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Note: Removal of content, blanking (UV 0.1.6)"
- 07:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1286829889 by PEPSI697 (talk): Rv blanking"
- 07:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Final Warning: Removal of content, blanking (UV 0.1.6)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is blanking before consensus is reached, multiple editors have reverted changes as they appear to constitute vandalism. Stickymatch 07:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- They certainly do not constitute vandalism. I noticed that someone had added a lot of badly written, sometimes incoherent text with multiple grammar errors, so I removed it. That, unfortunately, attracted the attention of a single-purpose revert-and-warn account, which has reverted my edits four times and relentlessly spammed my talk page with obnoxious "warnings", falsely claiming that I did not provide a reliable source (obviously a nonsensical claim when my edit removed text, and did not add any), then falsely claiming vandalism, then falsely claiming that I did not explain my edits.
- It is really infuriating when a perfectly good edit triggers such an aggressive and unnecessary response. 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is also infuriating that the user replaced a load of spam messages that I had removed from my talk page. They evidently do not think they have to abide by the basic concept that they are not in charge of anybody's talk page except their own. 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Half an hour later, the user has not responded at all. This was nothing more than a drive-by attempt to get an IP address blocked, without any interest whatsoever in the content of the article. 2A00:23C8:D312:3F01:BCE7:348E:A997:ED17 (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- While the IP has exceeded 3RR here, the underlying dispute appears to have been resolved by Ritchie333 blocking PEPSI697 for edit warring. I note that PEPSI697's explanations for engaging in the edit war were wholly lacking. Given the lack of any talk page discussion, I'm going to go ahead and decline further action. Any further disagreement about content at Gracie Films should be taken up on its talk page.Stale signed, Rosguill talk 14:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'll also add the IP was restoring the article to the status quo, after this other IP added a bunch of unsourced fan's point of view ramblings. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- While the IP has exceeded 3RR here, the underlying dispute appears to have been resolved by Ritchie333 blocking PEPSI697 for edit warring. I note that PEPSI697's explanations for engaging in the edit war were wholly lacking. Given the lack of any talk page discussion, I'm going to go ahead and decline further action. Any further disagreement about content at Gracie Films should be taken up on its talk page.
User:36.65.247.248 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: No violation )
Page: Singapore Airlines Flight 321 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 36.65.247.248 (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:
- 13:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Singapore Airlines Flight 321."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 12:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC) on User talk:36.65.247.248 "/* April 2025 */ Reply"
Comments:
- 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. Martinevans123 has made a compromise edit that will hopefully make this feud stop. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have no personal view on this. I just assumed it was standard practice as per WP:MoS. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
User:JustinSeke reported by User:Rosguill (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: International Police Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JustinSeke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1285765693
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: April 15
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion April 15-22
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1286862168
Comments:
In addition to themselves edit warring and having a COI (which they’ve informally disclosed but have not observed formally, nor have they clarified if their relationship is paid), JustinSeke has been engaging in meat puppetry together with other IPO-affiliated accounts making effectively identical edits for 1.5 years (1 March 2025, 19 February 2025, 16 February 2025, 12 February 2025, 12 August 2024 16 July 2024, 9 December 2023). A recent SPI was declined on the (at-the-time, valid) basis that JustinSeke was engaging appropriately on the talk page, but now that edit warring has resumed admin intervention is needed. At this point I think that blocks and EC protection should be considered, as it seems doubtful that IPO members/employees will stop or that they will provide adequate sources having thus far failed to do so repeatedly when prompted. Reviewing admins may also wish to look through a prior AfD for the article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Police Organization, where concerns were first raised by editors that the sources available paint a different narrative than what the organization's supporters wish to emphasize. signed, Rosguill talk 13:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you for raising these concerns.
- First and foremost, I would like to clarify that my intention has always been to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith, with a commitment to accuracy and neutrality. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines and respect the policies around conflict of interest and collaborative editing.
- Regarding the COI, I acknowledge that I have an affiliation with the IPO, but my edits have always been based on publicly verifiable information and not on personal opinion or agenda. I am more than willing to disclose my connection formally if necessary and will take any steps needed to comply fully with the COI policy.
- As for the accusation of "meat puppetry," I can assure you that I have not coordinated any editing campaigns. If other users have made similar contributions, it may reflect a shared concern about how the IPO has been represented rather than deliberate manipulation. Nevertheless, I understand how this may be perceived and will avoid further involvement unless explicitly invited to participate on the talk page.
- I also recognize the importance of providing high-quality, reliable sources. I am currently in the process of obtaining an official statement from the IPO and am seeking independent journalistic or academic sources to better support the edits. If those sources are not sufficient, I will respect the consensus and step back from editing the article directly.
- I appreciate your time, patience, and willingness to engage in discussion. My only aim is to ensure that the article reflects a fair and factual overview of the organization, without bias or misinformation.
- Best regards, JustinSeke (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- The response above is about 85% AI-generated. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- What’s the problem with that? 2A01:599:B2E:C77C:412A:AB50:AA24:2964 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- If editors can't be bothered to communicate without using AI to do it (with all the attendant possible issues that can cause) then I don't see why we should engage either. The above response might be perfectly good English but since it is obviously AI-generated we still know zero about what the actual editor themself actually thinks. Also, if their quality of English is so bad that they need to use AI to communicate, what does that suggest they're using to actually edit the article? Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- What’s the problem with that? 2A01:599:B2E:C77C:412A:AB50:AA24:2964 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- The response above is about 85% AI-generated. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
User:OCDD & User:Rfakjunkie reported by User:Jpeeling (Result: Both blocked 48h)
Page: Virat Kohli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported OCDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [220]
Diffs of OCDD's reverts:
User being reported Rfakjunkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of Rfakjunkie's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff, diff
Comments:
Multiple reverts and edit warring between OCDD and Rfakjunkie on this page over the last few days. Both users were warned and OCDD has continued without engaging constructively. OCDD also appears to be in dispute with Ashish 1816 on the same page (see article history) and has been warned (diff) by another user about edit warring on the Rohit Sharma page. JP (Talk) 08:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Rfakjunkie has now also continued the edit war despite the warning, so I've added them to this. JP (Talk) 10:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked both reported users for 48h for violating 3RR. OCDD's 4th revert was several minutes outside the 24-hour window, but although I could have just blocked them for edit-warring, I chose 3RR because of the following policy language: "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior."--Bbb23 (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Jayanthkumar123 reported by User:Benison (Result: Article added to existing partial block)
Page: L2: Empuraan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jayanthkumar123 (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:
- 16:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on L2: Empuraan."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 05:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Jayanthkumar123 "/* April 2025 */ @Jayanthkumar123 "I'm aware of the 'contest' and when you ..." [[[w:en:User:Alexis Jazz/Factotum|Factotum]]]"
Comments:
Multiple reverts and edit warring on a protected article (which is protected in the first place due to such disruptions). Additionally, they are involved in similar 'contest' is other related articles too. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- As I said on my talk page Sankranthiki Vasthunam is the "second" and L2: Empuraan is the "third" highest grossing Indian films of 2025. Sankranthiki Vasthunam 225-300 value, whereas L2: Empuraan has 266.12 value, in this the 300 crore has the highest value than the 266.12 crore. Even though the earlier film has range, it still has highest value (300. This is followed on every Indian grossing film articles. That is why I have made the respective edits in both the film articles. Why should any discussion be there when this is done on every Indian film article. Some editors might not know this, and thus the situation. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Jayanthkumar123, There was no rationale given by you in your edits and reverts for the past 3 days. No discussions or no talk page notices or messages. Absolutely nothing. Not even a simple edit summary. You have been blocked for edit warring before too for similar reasons and your current indef is also because of the same attitude that is very much against our P&Gs. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- You just made this edit that is not backed by RS. The figure 300 crores is WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRUIT. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- The figure is added long back, but you seems to be having a problem because I have made this edit. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Jayanthkumar123, please read WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Both sources are reliable, yet somehow have problem with only "my" edits. There are many film articles, that use "such" sources which only report final gross. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- And that is why, the range of gross is added. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Jayanthkumar123, I won't be giving any more explanation to you now, but once again I urge you to read WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRUIT. Those reliable sources are using primary sources as their sources, along with other non RS, which is FRUIT. I'll now wait for a sysop to reply now. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's what I am saying, many Indian film articles uses such "reliable" sources. The sources nowhere mentioned it as the direct figure from the producer, if they mentioned so I won't be adding those in the first place. Range of the figure is thus added based on the figures from "multiple" reliable sources. All the media house sources are "reliable", please check their reliability as discussed here WP:ICTF. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Jayanthkumar123, I won't be giving any more explanation to you now, but once again I urge you to read WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRUIT. Those reliable sources are using primary sources as their sources, along with other non RS, which is FRUIT. I'll now wait for a sysop to reply now. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- And that is why, the range of gross is added. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- The figure is added long back, but you seems to be having a problem because I have made this edit. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- You just made this edit that is not backed by RS. The figure 300 crores is WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRUIT. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Jayanthkumar123, There was no rationale given by you in your edits and reverts for the past 3 days. No discussions or no talk page notices or messages. Absolutely nothing. Not even a simple edit summary. You have been blocked for edit warring before too for similar reasons and your current indef is also because of the same attitude that is very much against our P&Gs. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've removed List of Indian films of 2025 from the pages because diffs have been provided only for L2: Empuraan.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely from the article since it seems to me Jayanthkumar was gaming the system by making just two reverts, waiting 24 hours and then doing it again. The length and limitations of this sanction are admittedly imperfect, a result of the current technological limitations by which making the block sitewide, or limiting it to a short period will override the existing block, and I do not feel comfortable doing that right now as I had nothing to do with its imposition. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Leechjoel9 reported by User:Socialwave597 (Result: Declined)
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: [221]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [230]
Comments:
Was planning on retiring from Wikipedia until I noticed this user deleted a significant amount of my work with little to no explanation, WP:WIKIHOUNDING. In his edit summaries, 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. User has been made aware he has been editing in a contentious topic since March[231]. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined This is really something better dealt with at AN/I, as it's outside the usual parameters of this noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
User:DanielG.M.S.S.N reported by User:Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page: Spanish Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 23:24, 23 April 2025
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:55, 23 April 2025
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:PermanentLink/1287158177#Hegemony
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1287162153
Comments:
User has been warned multiple times[232][233][234][235] and even given specific guidance on the WP:BRD cycle[236], which led to them opening a discussion on the article's talk page[237], unfortunately they then continued to edit war[238] after opening that discussion for which they were again warned on the discussion page[239], which they did not heed and continued warring[240][241] fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but you started the war by senselessly modifying my legitimate contributions. Everything I've changed is true, and I've started a discussion in the group, which you haven't bothered to participate in. Your attitude is not constructive and undermines the good work of Wikipedia. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- On top of that, you're intentionally mixing up "warnings" on different articles to make it seem like they aren't. The first warnings I received, as you call them, were due to my complete ignorance of how editing works on Wikipedia. I beg you to stop tarnishing my good name. And I'm not going to report your misconduct because, unlike you, I believe in dialogue as a method of conflict resolution. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Downzyisaliar reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: DJ Ashba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Downzyisaliar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC) "the source is Ashba's personal verified facebook page. You can't get more reliable than Ashba himself."
- 16:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC) "reverting this edit; the source in the article is Ashba's personal facebook page. you can view it here https://metalsludge.tv/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Ashba_Wife_NAtty_Feb_2023_3.jpg"
- Consecutive edits made from 23:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC) to 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- 23:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1287075333 by FlightTime (talk): Personal life has information that shouldn't have been removed"
- 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "rather than deleting this information, the person should have done a google search and added citations themsleves IMO."
- 20:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "undoing revert, minor edits were made to the info box to add the label he was on with Guns N' Roses, ex-spouse and current partner, and adding a more recent image of Ashba rather than a 15 year old publicity photo."
- Consecutive edits made from 19:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC) to 20:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- 19:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "rewrote article"
- 20:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "minor updates to infobox"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: False edit summary 3."
- 20:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* April 2025 */ Misclick"
- 20:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Final warning notice on DJ Ashba."
- 20:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* April 2025 */"
- 21:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "+ {{ow}}"
- 21:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Notification: tagging for deletion of File:Ashbaperforminggnr2014.jpg."
- 23:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* removing "weirdo" comments on my talk page */ new section"
- 23:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on DJ Ashba."
- 23:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* NOTHERE */ new section"
- 16:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on DJ Ashba."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 21:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* since "FlightTime" wants a talk discussion about the infobox */ cmt"
- 21:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC) "/* since "FlightTime" wants a talk discussion about the infobox */ WTF"
Comments: This flighttime user thinks that Ashba's personal facebook page is not a reliable source of information. He began an edit war trying to remove info about Ashba's divorce. The sources are properly cited. This should be the end of the discussion. Instead, he has constantly vandalized my own talk page and the Ashba wiki article.
- Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
User:90.243.107.174 reported by User:Braganza (Result: Declined)
Page: Reactions to the death of Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.243.107.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [242]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
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: [247]
Comments:
The user constantly pushes for the inclusion of a royal pretender as a leader of Romania. Braganza (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined. They didn't violate 3RR, and while they have made four reverts, the last one was over 24 hours ago. There's also been no attempt at discussion of any kind on the article talk page or their user talk page and they weren't given any kind of warning before being reported here. Please try to discuss the disputed content first. - Aoidh (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Aryanisking reported by User:Czello (Result: Page protected)
Page: 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aryanisking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- Revision as of 07:32, 23 April 2025
- Revision as of 13:52, 23 April 2025
- 13:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC) "Again removed unreliable sources. you people are the reason people have stopped taking wikipedia seriously, why you all are using random news articles as sources? Indian government clarified that no indian land had been annexed by China, china also did not claim of annexing any Indian land."
- 06:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC) "Removed unreliable sources. Indian government and Indian Army clarified that no indian land had been annexed by China, china also did not claim of annexing any Indian land. Random news articles and opinions are not reliable sources."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 07:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
3RR has not been violated, however this user is continuing to edit war slowly despite a warning and being reverted by several editors. — Czello (music) 10:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
User:PromQueenCarrie reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Partially blocked 6 months)
Page: Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PromQueenCarrie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [248]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [257]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [258]
Comments:
This user has reverted @Aybeg: one time, @Remsense: 3 times and me 2 times. This user thinks her 13 sources makes her addition correct, but WP:ONUS. The sources takes an autobiography as account. Talk:Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk#Request_for_comment:_Atatürk's_romance_with_Gabor here she opened RFC, however many users agreed that this should be included as a claim on Zsa Zsa Gabor's article. But even there she states this as a fact. She is giving also misleading citation here calling me "smart-aleck", "playing games", also [259] calling me "troll". WP:PA. Beshogur (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Partially blocked – for a period of 6 months. If the personal attacks continue, the block will become site-wide. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
User:2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:943D:B9A6:E157:8B86 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Tony Robbins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:943D:B9A6:E157:8B86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287625400 by MrOllie (talk) Longstanding version, WP:BRD and find a consensus"
- 12:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 12:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287623432 by Polygnotus (talk) Your weird agenda against Robbins stops here"
- 12:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287615697 by Polygnotus (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tony Robbins."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
User:74.211.32.138 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Blocked for a week)
Page: Plagues of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.211.32.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 17:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC) "Your repeated assertions through this entry and erasure of edits are 1) false and an intellectual betrayal because they erase scholarly diversity; 2) misleading and an ethical betrayal because Wikipedia is intended to be unbiased; and 3) hypocritical and violation of the social contact because this site allows crowd edits, but you disallow a minor edit which corrects a major lie. This is a deliberate corruption of due process. Go start your own website with locked code if you want propaganda."
- 02:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC) "Bully, liar, and a pompous fabricator of specious nonsense on topics which are not your area of expertise"
- 02:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) "Liar and bully"
- 01:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC) "Liar"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: Self explanatory. Warned them about edit warring too. Was blocked only for personal attacks. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one week for multiple 3RR vios, continued incivility and refusal to discuss. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Onpoint12 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: Al-Biruni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Onpoint12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [260]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [266]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [267]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [268]
Comments:
User:Onpoint12 has been reported before for editwarring before[269] and wasn't blocked. Onpoint12 has been told of a consensus and decided to ignore this(I have provided a link for the consensus). You'd think after 5rr they'd find the article talk page.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Algirr reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Already blocked)
Page: Fall of the Assad regime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Algirr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287575167 by Skitash (talk)"
- 03:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287561470 by Quetstar (talk) The requirements do not prohibit the use of a combined collage. There are many other similar examples that do not cause any complaints."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Algirr#1RR
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Algirr#Syrian_civil_war_infobox_infobox_image
Comments:
- This is their second violation of 1RR (this month). The first violation was done 3 days ago (see Special:Diff/1287078350/1287121532 and Special:Diff/1287147848/1287210930). They were again made aware of what they did (please see User_talk:Algirr#1RR).
- They did the same thing in February (please see User_talk:Algirr#Syrian_civil_war_infobox_infobox_image). M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- There was a consensus on the placement of a UNIFIED collage, and a photograph was attached, I don’t understand what the problem is to look at it. It called "Infobox collage" and it is last one topic on the discussion page. Also, I'm not the first one who decided to change the collage to separate photos, but it all started with this. I wonder why I participate in the "Edit War" and another person doing the same thing does not? It was that other person who started changing the collage to separate, contrary to the consensus that the unified collage was shown. Algirr (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with M.Bitton. I'd like to add that editor in question had also been highly disruptive on Arab Cold War where they've made four reverts within 25 hours.[270][271][272][273] Skitash (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Of course you agree, because you did the same with my edits. Algirr (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- And Moreover, YOU made same number of reverts for the same (or almost the same) time. Algirr (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Do you disagree with the fact that you violated WP:1RR twice? M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I do not agree that I am the only one accused of this and especially (if this is implied) that I started it. Algirr (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I gave my justifications. The consensus on "Fall of the Assad Regime" said one thing, but some person does it differently, hiding behind the policy of using each image (although Wikipedia does not prohibit the use of combined collages, as can be seen from their frequent use in other articles). In the article on the "Arab Cold War" I still do not understand what the claim is about the presence of the map and what is the point in removing it. Algirr (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- You have violated WP:1RR (twice). This is an undisputed fact. M.Bitton (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, I did that. I don't count hours, if be honestly Algirr (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- In any case, I would not violate this, accidentally or on purpose, unless another person replaced one with another, which he considers correct, and without serious reasons, and even without creating a consensus on this topic Algirr (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I would not violate this, accidentally or on purpose, unless..
this says it all. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)- Well, I can’t prove to you that the violation was accidental, that’s why I use this wording. What’s the problem again? Algirr (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- You violated WP:1RR and that's the end of it. Quetstar (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- i am not deny it, I am argued why it is happened. And you make changes many times without creating consensus. Algirr (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is your responsibility to watch yourself. There is therefore no need to figure out why you broke it. Also, Consensus isn't always required. Quetstar (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- OK, no, I need. In this case, it was required. Algirr (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is your responsibility to watch yourself. There is therefore no need to figure out why you broke it. Also, Consensus isn't always required. Quetstar (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- i am not deny it, I am argued why it is happened. And you make changes many times without creating consensus. Algirr (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- You violated WP:1RR and that's the end of it. Quetstar (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I can’t prove to you that the violation was accidental, that’s why I use this wording. What’s the problem again? Algirr (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- You have violated WP:1RR (twice). This is an undisputed fact. M.Bitton (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Do you disagree with the fact that you violated WP:1RR twice? M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with M.Bitton. I'd like to add that editor in question had also been highly disruptive on Arab Cold War where they've made four reverts within 25 hours.[270][271][272][273] Skitash (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
User:107.77.212.213 reported by User:Gommeh (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Pages: Adriano Espaillat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Delia Ramirez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.77.212.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 13:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 13:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 13:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC) ""
- 13:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Fixed intentionally misleading vocabulary"
- 13:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 13:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Adriano Espaillat."
- 13:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
- 13:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Delia Ramirez."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 14:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC) on User talk:107.77.212.213 "Warning: Disruptive editing on Adriano Espaillat."
Comments:
Repeatedly changing links to Undocumented immigration to the United States to read "illegal alien". When I attempted to warn them that this language was politically charged in violation of policy, they ignored my (and others') warnings and continued to edit war. Gommeh (t/c) 14:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: They are still edit warring even after I notified them that this discussion was taking place. Gommeh (t/c) 14:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
User has been blocked. Looks like @LuK3 blocked them but didn't edit this section of the page, so I'll do it for them. Gommeh (t/c) 16:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
User:Guxhuli reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: Albanian Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guxhuli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Disruptive edit! Let's wait what the admins say before you remove or add content that was not previously there!"
- 18:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287994409 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
- 18:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Paul the Apostle was the one who brought Christianity to the territories of modern Albania (At the time Illyricum), so he is symbolically (indirectly) the founder of the church in Albania."
- 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287077240 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 20:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Albanian Orthodox Church."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 19:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Paul the Apostle */"
Comments:
Hello. Editor disruptively removed my "citation needed" tag four times for an unsourced claim and ended up violating WP:3RR. I tried to resolve the issue on the article's talk page and user talk pages, but they are not being cooperative and falsely accused me of disruptive editing. They are also already aware about contentious topics, as seen here. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, this is not the whole story! I specifically explained why I think the edits are disruptive on the article Talk page as well as in his own talk page User_talk:StephenMacky1#c-Guxhuli-20250429185100-Please_stop_disruptive_edits! as well as on my own, but this user kept going on his own way. I even suggested that we wait for what an administrator has to say first, before we edit the article. He wants to have it his own way! I think this user needs to be reported, not me. Best Regards Guxhuli (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- You did not make any policy-based rationale there. Anyway, I would like to self-correct myself here. The editor actually removed the tag three times but reverted me four times. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is a policy-based rationale there. And two editors of the article think it like me! Namely the person who added the info you irrationally dispute and me! I simply reverted it to how it was! Guxhuli (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- You did not make any policy-based rationale there. Anyway, I would like to self-correct myself here. The editor actually removed the tag three times but reverted me four times. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one week. As noted in the block log, there was also some WP:LOUTSOCK by the user. Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
User:97.181.253.59 reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked )
Page: Tron: Ares (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.181.253.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 22:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288016296 by MikeAllen (talk) Stop It!"
- 21:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287932774 by MikeAllen (talk)"
- 06:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287900180 by Untamed1910 (talk)"
- 03:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287854795 by Rusted AutoParts (talk)"
- 21:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1287761691 by MikeAllen (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Blocked – for a period of 60 hours from article. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- The ip is also edit warring on 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple as well Untamed1910 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- It might help if you pinged Acroterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've converted it to a site block. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- It might help if you pinged Acroterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
User: 2A02:587:450A:2300:490A:CEC9:CAAF:EAD7 reported by User:Celjski Grad (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Riemann–Hilbert problem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:587:450A:2300:490A:CEC9:CAAF:EAD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [274]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [278]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [279]
Comments:
User is repeatedly adding original research and refusing requests to include sources or discuss the changes on the article talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celjski Grad (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Vofa reported by User:84.251.164.143 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Uralic languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vofa (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [286]
Comments:
84.251.164.143 (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- User:84.251.164.143 Hi, my name is Vofa.
- I want to briefly cover the timeline of events leading to ANI:
- You have reverted my edits on the page of Uralic languages on 29 April 2025 stating „this is not an acceptable way to deal with uncertainties about Samoyedic“
- I followed up with attempting to start a discussion on your talk page (assuming you had one), however I did not find a talk page belonging to you. Then I decided to followed up with restoring the previous version of the page, thinking that it would be difficult to reach out to you, hoping that a discussion would be initiated on the articles talk page and that I would receive the ping.
- Two edits were made on the same day by a different user.
- Soon after, my edits were reverted again by a different user, stating “Two editors do not support your changes. Discuss or be reverted.”
- I deemed the threat unconstructive. Anyhow, I tried to reach out to this new user, assuming he had a talk page. I did not find a talk page dedicated to the user, thus failing to communicate with them. After a few hours, I reverted his edit viewing it as potential vandalism, considering the user had his first (or second?) ever edit on WP at Uralic languages.
- On April 30 2025 my restoration was undone, with a user stating “Restore stable content”
- Shortly after restoration, I tried to see if he had created a talk page for himself. He did not. However, unbeknownst to me he had already opened a discussion at Uralic languages. Unfortunately I did not receive any notifications of his messages at my talk page and the article’s talk page until hours later.
- He had messaged me on my talk page stating “Please do not mark reverts as "minor edits" as you did in Uralic languages, and stop edit warring. Thanks,”
- I replied with “Hello, I was not pinged for your message (you should have started a new discussion)
- I did not mark any of my edits as minor since at least last fall. I did not try to engage in edit warring.
- Outline any issues that you see with the recent version of the article.”
- My initial thoughts were that a new dispute formed based on my supposed marking of the edits.
- However, I knew that I did not mark any of my edits as minor since at least last fall if I remember correctly, based on previous discussions against it. I proceeded with restoring the previous version of the page, thinking that the previous dispute is no more and that the issue was with my marking, which I knew were not minor. I had hoped that the dispute would be solved after my response.
- After some time, I receive at least two mentions in notifications, seeing that I was accused of engaging in edit warring and that a Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion was initiated. I started by writing a response to him at the article’s page and followed up with this response on ANI.
- I am ready to co-operate with all parties in this noticeboard.
- Vofa (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I note that
this is not an acceptable way to deal with uncertainties about Samoyedic
andTwo editors do not support your changes. Discuss or be reverted
are not my edit summaries, but there is another IP involved. Vofa should be experienced enough to know that the content discussion goes to article talk page, so the excuses about missing user page are irrelevant. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC) - Third revert in the above list is marked as minor. 84.251.164.143 (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I note that
- Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Ssgk15 reported by User:Sophisticatedevening (Result: User indeffed as NOTHERE)
Page: Kazi Nazrul Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ssgk15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 14:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288422992 by CharlesWain (talk)"
- 14:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288418586 by CharlesWain (talk)"
- Consecutive edits made from 13:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC) to 13:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- 13:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288146711 by CharlesWain (talk)"
- 13:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288147251 by CharlesWain (talk)"
- 13:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288073182 by CharlesWain (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 15:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kazi Nazrul Islam."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments: Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Their protestations on their talk page aside, they never backed away. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Alex_21 & User:81.104.94.127 reported by User:Rambling Rambler (Result: Stale)
Page: Lux (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alex_21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 81.104.94.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Alex_21
81.104.94.127
Continued behaviour after report [295]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [296] Diff of Alex_21 warning IP editor. Presume this would have same intended meaning as a 3RR notice in this instance.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [297] Making Alex_21 aware of breach, has edited since without undoing their breach.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [298], [299]
Comments:
Users edit-warring on article over ratings data. In case of Alex_21, while there is no formal 3RR warning the user has chosen to make what seems to be an implied accusation of myself being the IP editor "logged-out" to edit war which clearly demonstrates a knowledge of the policy [300][301]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambling Rambler (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- The editor has continued to force the edit even during a content dispute discussion; first revert [302], second revert [303], third reverted performed during discussion [304]. The editor was reverted by another [305] for the addition of an unreliable source and reverted by the same editor [306] for their continued addition of unsourced content. There is a clear dispute between all four editors involved. No such accusations were made as claimed above; two separate editors were referred to in the same edit, the filing editor has simply taken it upon themselves to take it as an attack despite already being told otherwise [307]. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- The editor has continued to force the edit even during a content dispute discussion
- Not interested in rehashing the ongoing content dispute but this is quite simply untrue. The claimed "third reverted performed during discussion" was adding to the lead mention of a completely separate cited statistic that hasn't been disputed and is present in diffs from prior to the current dispute (The episode received overnight viewing figures of 1.58 million, the lowest broadcast ratings in Doctor Who's history) [308], and is an edit that did not undo any part of a recent edit so isn't a revert. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- It related to the content being discussed at the time. It therefore contributes towards edit-warring; almost all reverts can be counted in an edit-war, but not everything in an edit-war needs to be a revert. (All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.) As I said: there is a clear dispute between all four editors involved, so I think we need to take a step back and get clarification on the policy being discussed (as has already been suggested). -- Alex_21 TALK 00:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. The dispute is around the consolidated ratings and referencing historical lows for that, which I have not edited in the article about since discussion was opened in Talk. The untrue claim about a supposed "third reversion" was around the overnight broadcast ratings, a completely different statistic that you have only just now claimed was a "reversion" even though such content was not present in any of the previous interactions between myself and TheDoctorWho you've referenced ([309][310]). Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I made in the widest possible interpretation a total of two reversions (one reverting in good faith believing a source to be reliable when there was unknown to me consensus that it wasn't, and a second potential reversion adding a reliable source and believing that solved the highlighted issue). Once discussion at Talk was opened I discussed in good faith about the issue and have not attempted to reintroduce the disputed content.
- Maybe instead of trying to prosecute myself for a different unrelated matter you focus on the actual subject of the report. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have made my response and claims here, based on my view of the content dispute. I will not be getting into a third argument with you and will leave the administrators to do their work here, as per my latest response at the content dispute discussion. Hoping you respect this. Thank you. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Alex 21, in response to [311]: Unsourced content is not generally vandalism, especially not the kind of "obvious vandalism" that may be freely reverted at any time. You say it's original research? Fine, but not exempt from the policy against edit warring.
- Also, the term "logged out" may seem to imply that there is an account that has been logged out from. You mean "unregistered", "IP" or "without account", many say "anonymous" although in my opinion IP editing is less anonymous than account editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Duly noted. Thank you for the explanation, I'll take heed of it. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have made my response and claims here, based on my view of the content dispute. I will not be getting into a third argument with you and will leave the administrators to do their work here, as per my latest response at the content dispute discussion. Hoping you respect this. Thank you. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. The dispute is around the consolidated ratings and referencing historical lows for that, which I have not edited in the article about since discussion was opened in Talk. The untrue claim about a supposed "third reversion" was around the overnight broadcast ratings, a completely different statistic that you have only just now claimed was a "reversion" even though such content was not present in any of the previous interactions between myself and TheDoctorWho you've referenced ([309][310]). Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- It related to the content being discussed at the time. It therefore contributes towards edit-warring; almost all reverts can be counted in an edit-war, but not everything in an edit-war needs to be a revert. (All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.) As I said: there is a clear dispute between all four editors involved, so I think we need to take a step back and get clarification on the policy being discussed (as has already been suggested). -- Alex_21 TALK 00:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Stale. Page semi-protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: Taking a quick look at this IP's user talk page, is it fair to say that they're WP:NOTHERE? Prior to this thread they have had 7 warnings (three of which are level 3 or final warnings), over the span of two months. Despite these notices, they clearly continue to be disruptive to the site. Although not technically a violation of the 3RR (barely currently), they've gotten into a pseudo-long term edit war on Fourteenth Doctor, and a check of their contributions show that they refuse to take part in any discussion (here or elsewhere). Seems like more could potentially be done here? TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- IPs can't really be NOTHERE. The person behind them can change over time, so we almost never make the indefinite block that determination results in. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hmm. TheDoctorWho, it doesn't depend on the warnings. Warnings can be unjustified. If there is evidence (in form of diffs) for persistent disruption from a specific IP address, WP:ANI would be a good place to report it and a long-duration {{anonblock}} can be placed. At the moment, from a quick look at their contribution list and the amount of non-reverted edits there, I personally see no need for action beyond the page protection. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- They've continued the edit-war at Fourteenth Doctor (as well as making the same sorts of edits at Ncuti Gatwa and List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)). Could we request a page protection there too, please? Thanks. (It's unfortunate that we have to block beneficial edits from constructive IPs for this one anon.) -- Alex_21 TALK 22:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: Taking a quick look at this IP's user talk page, is it fair to say that they're WP:NOTHERE? Prior to this thread they have had 7 warnings (three of which are level 3 or final warnings), over the span of two months. Despite these notices, they clearly continue to be disruptive to the site. Although not technically a violation of the 3RR (barely currently), they've gotten into a pseudo-long term edit war on Fourteenth Doctor, and a check of their contributions show that they refuse to take part in any discussion (here or elsewhere). Seems like more could potentially be done here? TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Shink77 reported by User:Faster than Thunder (Result: Blocked 31h)
Page: International Villager (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shink77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288471140 by Annh07 (talk)"
- 21:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288470960 by Annh07 (talk)"
- 21:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288470550 by Annh07 (talk)"
- 21:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288470228 by Annh07 (talk)"
- 22:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Yo Yo Honey Singh"
- 21:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Yo Yo Honey Singh"
- 21:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC) "←Removed redirect to Yo Yo Honey Singh"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User's disruptions are seemingly understandably in good faith. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 21:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- They stopped editing this page after discussing with me. There's also no warning regarding edit warring on their talk page. I think this case can be ignored because they didn't understand Wikipedia's guidelines on notability (I was also at fault for not explaining this to them sooner) and they also didn't receive the relevant warning. Annh07 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- The reported user has been blocked by Rsjaffe for 31h for persistent addition of unsourced content.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah. They blasted through a bunch of warnings, including final warnings, and warnings from the edit filters, and kept on rapid editing. I believe this is more of a conflict of interest issue, with them having some interest in or relationship with Yo Yo Honey Singh, considering that is the common factor in their edits on all those different pages. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
User:109.255.26.206 reported by User:Greenman (Result: Already blocked)
Page: Beltane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.255.26.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by greenman: disruptive edits"
- 00:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC) "Reverted edits by discospinster: disruptive edits"
- 22:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC) "The name of the festival is bealtaine in English"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 09:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Beltane."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Borgenland reported by User:CallumPaxton (Result: Mostly a complaint about incivility; resolved)
Page: Ahtisa Manalo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borgenland (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:
Replies and addresses editors with "I wonder how in hell do you fail to read..." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ahtisa_Manalo#Rappler
And unsists on unreferenced edits, and reverts others' edits without reasonable cause or clear explanation. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahtisa_Manalo&oldid=1288602086
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahtisa_Manalo&oldid=1288602263
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahtisa_Manalo&oldid=1288643591
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahtisa_Manalo&oldid=1288643628 CallumPaxton (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I concede I made the opening summary in haste after having been jolted awake by the email (it is 8 AM here) and the fact that I do not take warnings made on false premises against me lightly. But I clearly stated where the passage and the quote is after their first revert [312] and [313], albeit in an exasperated manner over them falsely claiming it was not in the source stated. Hours later, they then wipe it off with on false pretenses [314] and issue me a warning [315] on similarly false pretenses.
- Now that I have tried to resolve on TP [316], (having been rudely awakened) user in question then begins moving the goalpost and finds some other way of committing WP:IDNHT, most probably in the hope of wiping the insertions off the moment I get blocked and despite all the evidence I have provided. I am deeply frustrated at their callous editing and utter insincerity appearing reflecting such behavior in this light. Borgenland (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Please do not address me or any of the other editors with "I wonder how in hell...." I or anyone else, do not deserve such disrespect. CallumPaxton (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- You try and refrain first from bringing up false accusation against others (twice) despite them trying to make do with your whims, then you can talk about respect. Borgenland (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- "I concede I made the opening summary after having been jolted awake by the email (it is 8 AM here)" You say.
- How come you were jolted awake when you already made deletions and did reverts on the article way before "8 AM"? While not communicating clearly why you made such reverts? Isn't that insisting on your edits and claiming ownership of the article—exactly what edit warring is? Still while you address fellow editors with "I wonder how in hell you fail to read..."?
- Again, I or anyone else do not deserve such disrespect and crassness of language. CallumPaxton (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I went to sleep at 2 AM after I had to restore info you deleted on false pretences. Your EW email reached me at 7:52 AM, and given the urgency and how aggrieved I am at receiving a false accusation, in a frenzy I restored the edit within 10 minutes. And now that I had provided the evidence (twice) and went to TP to justify the insertion and defend myself from further false accusations, you then move towards falsely accusing me of WP:OWN to cover up the fact that you failed to read the article comprehensively and accuse me again of inserting unsourced material? Borgenland (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Borgenland, you currently have the latest revision at Talk:Ahtisa Manalo and can easily edit your message even without strikethroughs. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- ToBeFree, I am currently in a nervous state with this issue, will be on an errand in an hour and struggling with dealing with this tab, the article TP and the article itself appearing simultaneously. But yes, thank you for this reminder. Borgenland (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's all good. If someone takes hasty administrative action in the meantime, I'll probably even undo it. The situation doesn't need quick shooting. Take your time. If you don't mind, consider condensing the quote to the necessary part (probably the bold part is sufficient) for the copyright reasons you've noticed (and I'll admit I'd have overlooked). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- The Talk one or the quote in the mainspace? Borgenland (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry for the ambiguity; I was still talking about the talk page only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed, tho I retained the paragraph quote in main since I also needed it for an important passage. Borgenland (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
If you have a look at this later with all the time needed, you'll see the copyright concern / quote size wasn't what I had primarily hoped to be modified. I'll be away for about 10 hours. CallumPaxton, could you clarify if you still view the edit summary of Special:Diff/1288598333 as accurate? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)- Just checked. Besides the "Her" which I already edited to "She", looks okay to me. Thanks. CallumPaxton (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I may be unnecessarily insistent but that ... doesn't really answer my question? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- No, you're not. Confirming it is accurate. CallumPaxton (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I may be unnecessarily insistent but that ... doesn't really answer my question? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- If you refer to the sentence itself I haven’t found a way to rewrite that without getting accused of WP:SYNTH. Do you mind if I also ask for roughly the same time you have? I’m in a neighboring province the whole day. Borgenland (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- All I am hoping is for you to remove the first sentence of your message at Talk:Ahtisa Manalo as it doesn't focus on content and could be summarized much more neutrally to "the content removed in Special:Diff/1288598333 is directly supported by the following part of the reference" or similar. The report here is far more about civility than edit warring and can probably be closed already as it's off-topic for the noticeboard.
- I also don't really understand if CallumPaxton says above that
Nowhere in the source did it say she joined pageants to support her education
is accurate, given the quote on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)- I’ll see how less edgy I can do. But probably not exactly in formal format you recommend. Borgenland (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good to me. Closing here already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I’ll see how less edgy I can do. But probably not exactly in formal format you recommend. Borgenland (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Just checked. Besides the "Her" which I already edited to "She", looks okay to me. Thanks. CallumPaxton (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed, tho I retained the paragraph quote in main since I also needed it for an important passage. Borgenland (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry for the ambiguity; I was still talking about the talk page only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- The Talk one or the quote in the mainspace? Borgenland (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's all good. If someone takes hasty administrative action in the meantime, I'll probably even undo it. The situation doesn't need quick shooting. Take your time. If you don't mind, consider condensing the quote to the necessary part (probably the bold part is sufficient) for the copyright reasons you've noticed (and I'll admit I'd have overlooked). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- ToBeFree, I am currently in a nervous state with this issue, will be on an errand in an hour and struggling with dealing with this tab, the article TP and the article itself appearing simultaneously. But yes, thank you for this reminder. Borgenland (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- You try and refrain first from bringing up false accusation against others (twice) despite them trying to make do with your whims, then you can talk about respect. Borgenland (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Please do not address me or any of the other editors with "I wonder how in hell...." I or anyone else, do not deserve such disrespect. CallumPaxton (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
User: Guotaian reported by User:Skitash (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: Reform UK (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: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [321]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [322]
Comments:
- Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
User:ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & reported by User:CoconutOctopus (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)
Page: Rakhyal Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rakhyal_Shah&oldid=1287941008
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rakhyal_Shah&oldid=1288926270
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rakhyal_Shah&oldid=1288918262
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rakhyal_Shah&oldid=1288797654
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rakhyal_Shah&oldid=1288772505
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ATIF_ALI_JISKANI_2346_%26&oldid=1288922202
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ATIF_ALI_JISKANI_2346_%26&oldid=1288922202#Warning - is on user talk, but user has seen.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ATIF_ALI_JISKANI_2346_%26&oldid=1288931731
Comments:
This user is repeatedly reverting an article to a previous, very long, badly sourced state that previously qad improved from at AfD. I have warned the user multiple times, and they habe previously had a 32 hour block for edit warring so they are well aware this is against the rules. CoconutOctopus talk 13:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
User:2402:d000:813c:89f2:1fff:bd85:6a23:f6a2 reported by User:Not Wlwtn (Result:/64 Blocked two weeks)
Page: List of political parties in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2402:d000:813c:89f2:1fff:bd85:6a23:f6a2 (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:
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:
IP address continues to vandalize the article and make WP:NPOV edits, changing details about certain parties without sources or justification. IP user is currently engaged in an edit war and has reverted two of my edits where I undid their edits.
I have warned them twice on their talk page now. Not Wlwtn (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Already blocked for a period of 2 weeks The /64, by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, thanks, I forgot to note this here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Carausius19 reported by User:SigillumVert (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
Page: Stefano Černetić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carausius19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [323]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [328]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [329]
Comments:
User is repeatedly adding a living person in the category of fraudsters despite that person being aquitted by court. Repeatedly violates BLP in general and BLP:CRIME, accuses other editors of sockpuppetry without any basis. I normally try to assume good faith, but this is clearly disruptive and contrary to policy. SigillumVert (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Indefinitely blocked. BusterD semi-protected the article before my block. Now that the user is blocked I don't think protection is neeed. I'll leave that to BusterD to decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Unprotected. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
User: Sinclairian reported by User:Skitash (Result: Both blocked)
Page: Masinissa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sinclairian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [330]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [331]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [332]
Comments:
This editor has violated WP:3RR by reverting four times within 24 hours to reintroduce unsourced disputed content. None of the sources they've cited support the content they're adding. They've also made uncivil remarks.[333] Skitash (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I have made several attempts on the talk page to show that each of the sources I have cited do, in fact, support the already cited content that the reporting user has removed 4 times in the past 24 hours. When challenged on their contents, I pointed out specifically where the information in each source was, and only received a reply of "Nonsense". Otherwise, the sources that I have provided in order to resolve this conflict have been almost immediately dismissed out of hand by the reporting user each time I have tried. Sinclairian (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Sinclairian: Skitash has reverted three times in the last 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, youre right. Misread the dates of the initial removal some weeks ago. I’ll strike that. Sinclairian (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- Both editors blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- N.B.: Have indeffed Sinclairian as a sock of BedrockPerson. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 02:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
User:Thrgssdf reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Blocked one week)
Page: Holomovement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thrgssdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [334]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [339]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [340] I asked the editor who kept reinserting this information that was flagged as WP:COPYVIO to go to talk in the edit summary here. They reverted me instead.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [341]
Comments:
This edit warring is exacerbated by the fact they are edit warring to reinsert extensive block quotes that were flagged by other editors as WP:COPYVIO there have also been concerns this editor may be socking although this is really more just another exacerbating factor to the obvious edit-warring. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
User:JDiala reported by User:HAL333 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: Friendship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JDiala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [342]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [347]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [348]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [349]
Comments:After a partial reversion of the image caption, JDial made three further reverts and spurious, bad-faith assumptions ("just want a painting with white people here"). ~ HAL333 13:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Note that this appears to be a pattern of behavior, and they have been warned for invoking race elsewhere. ~ HAL333 17:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
User:StanleyTimberlake reported by User:Werter1995 (Result: No violation)
Page: Tracy Wiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StanleyTimberlake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [350]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [353]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [354]
Comments:
tries to remove a photo from an article about himself, violating WP:Conflict of interest. WP:DISC and others. — Werter1995 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 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) 22:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
User:2003:100:3700:4900:ED73:66AA:EA1F:BA0F reported by User:MrOllie (Result: /64 blocked 24h)
Page: Timeline of quantum computing and communication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2003:100:3700:4900:ED73:66AA:EA1F:BA0F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1289122709 by MrOllie (talk): revert per talkpage, "I object" they said! offered to find a solution, they went to my talkpage to throw threats! sad!"
- 16:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "more neutral tone to avoid excuses of blind revert!"
- 03:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1289015500 by MrOllie (talk): never in any article a template shown at the top, plus how a cited content would be reverted!"
- 20:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288038575 by MrOllie (talk): revert blindly is not acceptable!"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 15:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Edit war! */ Reply"
Comments:
Talk page discussion is full of threats to report to ANI and personal attacks as well (see [355]). MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The range: 2003:100:3700:4900:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
User:JJUPLOADS22 reported by User:HawkNightingale175 (Result: Reporter blocked as a sockmaster)
Page: Philippine resistance against Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JJUPLOADS22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [356]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [361]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [362]
Comments:
This user has constantly added inaccurate information to the page after I constantly told him to stop. Even after explaining on the talk page why his edits were inaccurate, he continued to make said edits, even after I threatened to report him multiple times. I have reverted the page well more than 4 times but he continues to make the edits despite my providing evidence that contradicted the claims made by his edits. I have not made an edit warring report before so my apologies if this post is formatted incorrectly.
- I've indefinitely blocked HawkNightingale175 as a sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)