Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive468

User:DASL51984 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: DASL51984 blocked for 48h; Redacted II warned)

Page: SpaceX Starship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DASL51984 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1153878553 by Fyunck(click) (talk) Seriously, stop this crap as it's already been settled and you're dangerously close to starting an edit war."
2. 21:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1153861989 by Redacted II (talk) Again, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, and has been discussed many, many times. This should not have to be discussed."
3. 18:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Whether the vehicle was a prototype or an operational version is completely irrelevant."
4. 17:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Dude, stop it."
5. 04:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Fyunck(click) (talk)"
6. 02:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Removing "dubious" template again. This is not even a debate. Accept it, move on, and do NOT try to start an edit war."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on SpaceX Starship."
2. 21:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "/* May 2023 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Change made to failure status */"
2. 03:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Change made to failure status */"
3. 06:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Change made to failure status */"
4. 06:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Change made to failure status */"
5. 19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Dubious tag in infobox */"
6. 19:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Dubious tag in infobox */"
7. 21:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC) ""

Comments:

I asked this editor to self revert as they are reverting multiple editors 5x when the warning was given. Now 6x.They refused so it was reported. There is ongoing discussion at the talk page waiting for a closer to decide on strength of argument, sourcing, and votes though not on tagging the section with a footnote. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Note - this is the type of post we are now dealing with this editor. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I rightfully removed it as it was already clear that the launch was a failure, and now on the talk page the debate has been settled. Why you continue to beat this already dead horse by shoehorning it back in is beyond me.

User:Redacted II has also been doing the same thing Fyunck(click) has been doing as well. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 22:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked DASL51984 for 48h for violating 3RR. I am also warning Redacted II for edit-warring. The only reason I am not blocking them is because they are a new user and were never warned. DASL51984 was warned late and did not revert after the warning, but they are an experienced user (with an extensive, albeit old, block log for disruption) and did not need a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Sol505000 reported by User:93.143.79.158 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours; article semi-protected for a day)

Page: Kajkavian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sol505000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]

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:
And insulting on a national basis. I didn't offend him. [[7]] and [[8]]93.143.79.158 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

As can be seen on the IP's talk page and edit summaries, I requested them to propose their changes on the article talk page, but they continuously refused to do so. The proper response here is a WP:BOOMERANG. –Vipz (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, it's me again, my IP has changed on its own, such a network. I have to answer this question. How can you talk to someone with an IP [[9]] who has changed and changed and invented something that is not written in the source it is correct to go back to what he correctly wrote in the source. Now imagine that I invent something and add something that is not written in the source and say, let's go to the chat page later and talk about it. I think that's nonsense. In addition, I see on your page [[10]] that you are a "supports the reunification of the Serbo-Croatian language" that's what it says on your page. I have to tell you that today it is impossible when there are Serbian language and Croatian language that are recognized in the world, in the EU as separate languages, because they are independent states today.Unfortunately, I have to tell you that you are living in the past, when there was a state of Yugoslavia that no longer exists, and none of those forms of the Serbian-Croatian language, because times have changed, there is no longer a common state of Yugoslavia and everyone has their own language that is recognized in the EU and the world. It is clear to me why you would change the source for the sake of your politics, because you stand for the Serbo-Croatian language, while today there are only Croatian and Serbian languages, which have been recognized in the UN and the EU since 1990, when they became independent states. Please don't support a vandal who changes sources for his own benefit and it is not written there, and I see you like it too, I see from your page, because you are a fan of the Serbian-Croatian language, because that is against Wikipedia. We should respect the sources and what is written in them. Thank you.93.142.169.186 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours 3RRNO cannot be invoked here. In order to prevent the IP from editing if his IP is switched again, I will be semi-protecting the article for the same period. I would have imposed a rangeblock but it would have required a /15 CIDR, which the software does not allow. And there are many other people on the /16. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: the IP jumped right back in to revert-war after the article got unprotected. They keep dismissing the request for gathering consensus. –Vipz (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Page protected for a week; I have also added a CTOPS notice to the talk page and logged this action. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

User:TC-01e reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: No violation)

Page: The Penguin (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: TC-01e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1153984841 by Trailblazer101 (talk) Throwing a hissy fit because you want a low resolution copyrighted image is not useful. See other pages like The Book of Boba Fett which uses a high resolution vectorized image rather than a low res copyright infringement"
2. 14:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 12:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC) "/* The Penguin */ new section"
2. 14:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on The Penguin (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 14:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC) on User talk:TC-01e "/* The Penguin */ new section"

Comments:

I didn't want to have to report this editor as they seem new to the encyclopedia, although they have ignored my efforts to explain, clarify, and discuss the situation of the logo and image policy with them, alleged copyright infringement where there is none, and targeted me of a "hissy fit" by upholding standard practices and guidelines for reverting unexplained edits. This is a last resort given they don't appear to be stopping unless their preferred version is in place. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I have tried to talk to you on my talk page but you don't want to engage with the content of the dispute which is you uploading copyrighted images rather than using images that meet the originality threshold and are of a higher resolution. Calm down. You started the edit war and has refused to understand copyright violations, undoing any edits that challenge your own copyright violations with unaltered images of logos. TC-01e (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The editor engaged in the discussion at their talk page only after I started it in the middle of your initially unexplained edit warring and after this report was made, and the editor had initially ignored my efforts for them to discuss their initial unexplained and repeated reverts, even after I called for them to explain their rationale further at the talk. Typically, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain, although I have not reverted again as the discussion at the talk has had some back-and-forth constructive developments. The editor does not appear to understand the use of non-free title card logos, which I explained at their talk discussion. Their attitudes in regards to this issue seemed unwarranted, especially with them making unfounded accusations, thus the report being issued. I did upload a better quality logo to the original filename to alleviate their concerns, though it will still be made a lower file size. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2023 (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. But both editors went right up to the line. It's good that you've started talking ... keep doing that instead of reverting. And it also would be constructive to avoid characterizing the other editor's opposition as a "hissy fit". Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: And please continue this discussion on the talk page. You might not have ended up here if you'd gone there first. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:Kaalakaa (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11] “Lgv (sock)”
2. [12]
3. [13] “Restored (sock)”

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:
I fixed the content of the article because it didn't match what its source said. Then this user came and reverted my edit on the grounds of "Lgv (sock)". I then tried to invite them to discuss the matter and explain my edit on the talk page, but they replied with, "Please refer yourself to a check user. If you are not a sockpuppet of the editor whose edits you're reinstating, I will happily engage further." And they reverted it again. Kaalakaa (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This will probably be a WP:BOOMERANG. You should discuss the content dispute on the talk page as NEDOCHAN advises. — Czello ^(music) 12:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry? It was actually the other way around, I was the one who invited him to discuss it on the talk page, I also quoted what the source actually says. But instead he told me "Please refer yourself to a check user. If you are not a sockpuppet of the editor whose edits you're reinstating, I will happily engage further." And reverted it again. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, sorry if this is not the place to ask this. But I had explained the reason of my edits on the article’s talk page [18] and invited the user in question to discuss the matter, but he declined my invitation and instead told me to refer myself to a check user first to see if I am not a sockpuppet of the user whose edits I reinstated. I don't see how this has anything to do with the content of the article, and actually if you see article’s revision history [19] it’s clear that what I was reinstating was my own edits, so I honestly don’t know what he was talking about. He also implied on his talk page that I was doing sockpuppetry [20]. So what should I do about this? Besides, isn't accusing someone with no evidences classified as a personal attack? and constantly reverting edits while rejecting to have a discussion, I believe this violates one of the policies. Kaalakaa (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Pizzigs reported by User:Freoh (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]
6. [27]
7. [28]
8. [29]
9. [30]
10. [31]
11. [32]
12. [33]
13. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35] [36] [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] [39] [40]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41]

Comments:
This is another one of the edit warriors who contributed to the United States lockdown a couple of weeks ago and violated WP:3RR soon after the article was unlocked. Some of these edits fall within the scope of WP:ARBAP2, a contentious topic.  — Freoh 12:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC); edited 17:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• No violation. The last two edits were on May 7. The edits before that were on May 3 and then going back into April. Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  Bbb23, could you explain how this behavior does not violate Wikipedia's edit warring policy? Why is it relevant that some of this edit war occurred on May 3? SashiRolls provided me with a few additional diffs that I just included.  — Freoh 20:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Ajeeb Prani reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: Ajeeb Prani & TheCatLife both blocked for a week)

Page: Pokémon Ultimate Journeys: The Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "Why are you removing air dates? It (https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/part-3-of-pokemon-ultimate-journeys-the-series-is-coming-to-netflix#:~:text=Check%20out%20the%20latest%20trailer,Pok%C3%A9mon%20Ultimate%20Journeys%3A%20The%20Series.) states they will release 15 episodes on June 23rd, I hope you know basic Mathematics"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) to 12:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 12:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154280514 by TheCatLife (talk) You've already warned about it"
   2. 12:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 12:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) to 04:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 04:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Episode list */https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/part-3-of-pokemon-ultimate-journeys-the-series-is-coming-to-netflix#:~:text=Check%20out%20the%20latest%20trailer,Pok%C3%A9mon%20Ultimate%20Journeys%3A%20The%20Series."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly added back the English dub titles despite multiple editors seeming to agree to wait until they are listed on the official website. HAs recevied 2 final warnings for edit warring which they've blanked from their talk page ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

TheCatLife Has also been edit warring on the same page, reverting this editor (would've included them in the report but I don't know how to make a report for more than one person with Twinkle). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Those episodes have aired in Canada in English Dub that's why I added them, I told them to discuss on talk page but they didn't listen. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You are NOT supposed to add dub titles until they're listed on Pokemon.com. Why is that so hard for you to understand? TheCatLife (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not they have aired in Canada? Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I told both of you to take it to the talk page and neither of you seem to have listened. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf Can you add air dates for episode 30 to 46 (except recap episodes) as this source claims that they'll release 15 episodes on June 23rd. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests are an option. Make one. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Also look at their edit summary they are acting like they own that article. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week JBW (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Hunterb212 reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Amon-Ra St. Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hunterb212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]

Comments:

This user has previously been blocked for edit warring and back in January Hammersoft gave Hunterb212 another warning about edit warring.

Hunterb212 has, for a number of years, been trying to push the idea that the only reliable website for stats is the NFL's website, which is simply not true. Without getting too much into it, the NFL's website is not frequently updated and players will go their whole careers without their weight being updated. The NFL WikiProject, without consensus as to what should be given the most weight, considers NFL.com, Pro-Football-Reference, and the individual teams' websites as reliable sources for player information.

Previous discussion, which resulted in no consensus, at the NFL WikiProject that Hunterb212 started to try to gain consensus for only using NFL.com for measurements: [47]

I started a similar discussion in August of 2022 that also did not result in a consensus: [48]

While I've tried to avoid getting into it with them in the past, it's been a recurring issue for quite some time. I've let it go in the past and moved on, but their behaviour has not improved despite the block and warning from earlier this year. The inappropriate threats to try to force their preferred version of the article has pushed me to the point that I feel like this behaviour needs to be addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Netcrisimgt reported by User:General Ization (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Santino Ferrucci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC) to 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 20:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "/* FIA Formula 2 Championship */ It is not factual. Why do you keep it up? What is wrong with you?"
   2. 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Not based on any facts. Total hearsay What is wrong with you?"
2. 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ INACURATE HEARSAY"
3. 19:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "/* FIA Formula 2 Championship */ INACCURATE STATEMENTS"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Santino Ferrucci."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Note also two edits immediately prior to this editor's edits by 162.191.6.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which began the edit war. General Ization ^Talk 20:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Ruach Chayim reported by User:AlexBachmann (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Prizren District (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Peć District (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kosovska Mitrovica District (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kosovo-Pomoravlje District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kosovo District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Montenegro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ruach Chayim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: e.g. [49] [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]
7. [57]

(there are way too many, look up the articles history to see more)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: e.g. [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59] (I did not start the discussing, however, I participated)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [60]

Comments:
The user was banned for a week. Once the ban expired, he did not hesitate to revert my edits that I've made while he was gone (without discussing). He has been warned my multiple users (inlcuding me, an admin, and another user (see: [61]). However, he thinks every time that he has been wronged. This has been going on for a while. -AlexBachmann (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. They've returned to the same articles to continue the same edit wars immediately following the expiry of their last block.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Roman Reigns Fanboy reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Declined; editors made amends)

Page: Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154403894 by Trailblazer101 (talk) Because Jason clearly said he shot with multiple Batmen but doesn't know what the end product will be, that would include Affleck's Batman"
2. 07:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154403157 by Trailblazer101 (talk) Not constructive, the status of Batman is unclear"
3. 07:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154400646 by Trailblazer101 (talk) I checked the source, it actually doesn't even say Keaton's role was cut."
4. 06:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154363084 by Trailblazer101 (talk) We don't go by WP:RUMOR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC) on User talk:Trailblazer101 "/* Aquaman 2 */ Reply"

Comments:

This is an active edit war in which the other editor and myself are wholly aware we are both in violation of 3RR and I have encouraged civil discussion and requested page protection whilst continually reexplaining my edits and what the contents of the article are. I fear this is not going anywhere and we both need intervention to cool this off for a bit, and am willing to accept the consequences for the violation on my part. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I've actually tried to make a compromise with User: Trailblazer101. However, I violated 3RR in anger and am willing to accept consequences. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

We both were trying to compromise and had our own vaults. We are both at fault. This should have been handled better from both of us, and while the current resolution appears to be what I was suggesting, I do believe policy ought to be upheld as this is a teaching lesson for us both. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

All you did was revert me and kept the edits you wanted in the Cast section as it is, you just simply hid the text. [62] All the while talking about compromise and still insisting that Keaton was cut from Aquaman 2, but Affleck wasn't [63]. You didn't attempt any compromise in actuality. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll let the sources and my edits speak for myself, and I do not wish to further reexplain this at my talk or here and wish this to be behind us and for us to go our separate ways. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, I've decided to self revert as I got into edit warring in anger earlier. I apologise for reverting. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Declined as it looks from above like editors realized they could end this destructive conflict. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Tzaquiel reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tzaquiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:32, 13 May 2023
2. 21:02, 13 May 2023
3. 19:06, 13 May 2023
4. 18:47, 13 May 2023
5. 18:02, 13 May 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [67]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Kenquenito, User:Lightlylove, User:Lililolol reported by User:Paper9oll (Result: Protected)

Page: Born Pink World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

1. Kenquenito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Lightlylove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Lililolol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]
5. [72]
6. [73]
7. [74]
8. [75]
9. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Kenquenito (now blanked)
2. Lightlylove
3. Lililolol

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

Comments:

All 3 editors kept edit warring between each other, since 7 May 2023, pertaining to "highest-grossing girl group tour" with 2 (Lightlylove, Lililolol) vs 1 (Kenquenito) situation where the latter insisted that The Straits Times is considered unreliable sources due to it quoting from some Twitter sourcing or something along those lines while the 2 former disagreeing with such. In which, the latter has created a discussion at Talk:Born Pink World Tour, however the 2 former has not participated in and continued to throw words at each other using edit summary while reverting each other, and also throwing words at User talk:Lightlylove by Kenquenito. To date, Kenquenito has violated 6RR, Lightlylove violatted 3RR, and Lililolol violated 2RR. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting. This @Lightlylove (along with her alleged dummy account, @Lililolol) keep on insisting the The Straits Times' and The Korea Times' articles are reliable although their stories came from Touring Data on Twitter. Twitter is not reliable to begin with, especially when someone tweeted without backup from reputable sources such as Billboard and Pollstar. These two insisted the two previously stated publications are reliable, even though the content of their articles consists of unreliable data.

I would also like to emphasize that these two users like to include unreliable sources to an article. And when someone tries to correct them, they do not listen and insist their point of views instead. You can check their Talk page regarding that, qnd witness how many complaints they receive about their manners in Wikipedia. Kenquenito (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kenquenito Your behaviour is unacceptable as well with personal attacks against Lightlylove on 2 occassions as seen [80][81], and in fact you have been warned before on such. Regardless of, who is right and who is wrong, edit warring and also personal attacks is incorrect and unacceptable behaviour. In addition, if you have strong evidence that Multimilkp and Lililolol are sockpuppets of Lightlylove, please fill a report at WP:SPI otherwise these are considered as false accusation. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

If that’s the case, I apologize for such behavior. But the main topic here is about edit warring, which I have my reasons why I undo their edits—because of misinformation. Anyone can make fake data and present it in a believable manner. That’s what we are trying to prevent here. @Lightlylove and @Lililolol keep insisting that their sources are reliable despite the fact that the sites they provided have gathered their information from Touring Data. Again, the main topic here is edit warring. I think we should stick to that issue. Kenquenito (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

i have nothing to do with the user @Lililolol and @Multimilkp in fact, i didn't even know the later, and i always use reliable sources, i've read and learned WP:Source Guideline very well and carefully, that's why i get offended when you say i have problems with sources, cause all i try to do is help WP improve with reliable updates, that's why you see me changing many things that are considered misinformation by WP standards, those sources based themselves on Touring Data but that's not a bad thing cause Touring Data base themselves from official information, Wikipedia's Source Guidiline clarifies situations like this very well. Lightlylove (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Protected. I don't see any real discussion of this on the talk page. However I will agree with Kenquenito that media using Touring Data as their source cannot be regarded as reliable - TD is a WordPress site that aggregates reports from other sources, including artist representatives. It may or may not be correct, but it's effectively original research. User:Lightlylove and User:Lililolol would do well to remember this when the protection expires, and if they continue using those sources further action may be taken. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right and correct about Touring Data, i agree with you on that, but not every information they put out is wrong, WP talks about unreliable sources reporting true information sometimes like for example sources that are considered unreliable like allkpop, k-popstarz, kbizoom etc etc bring their information from reliable sources like The Korea Times, Naver and Chosun, so if a reliable source uses the information from Touring Data means it should be somehow true, that's why i thought it wouldn't been an issue putting that statement on the Born Pink World Tour article, now i' m seeing it from a different perspective and i totally apologize for it, i should have seek out for the source Touring Data used before putting the information on the article. Lightlylove (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  However you also ignored the fact that without real confirmation from a reliable source first any statement can't be written in Wikipedia, he said that the SpiceWorld Tour 1998 is the highest-grossing girl group tour of all-time but there's no official news/confirmation for that, only fan news, so he was misleading. Lightlylove (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say two things: first, the sockpuppet allegation is completely false. Second, if @Kenquenito bothered enough to explain briefly on his edit summary we wouldn't be here. Because generally, the Korea Times is reliable, and I don't think any editor would think twice before citing it. And anyway, the Spice Girls Tour never revealed how much they grossed, so isn't he also doing original research as well? Aslo, please, @Black Kite don't put me on the same page as @Lightlylovet, because I immediately stopped the edits when the first user Kenquenito brought my attention to his detailed explanation on the talk page although I didn't participated in it.Lililolol (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Lililolol You're missing the point, though - whether the Korea Times is reliable source is irrelevant - their story says "According to Touring Data..." and TD cannot be guaranteed to be reliable itself. Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite True I don't disagree here. My point was that I at first didn't question such a source until I saw the talk page, which is why I stopped reverting. Lililolol (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

User:220.236.126.177 reported by User:Doctorhawkes (Result: Both editors blocked and page protected)

Page: List of National Rugby League records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 220.236.126.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [89]

Comments:
User has a valid viewpoint, but has been unable to provide any source to support it. Has some discussion on article talk but still unable to provide any source. All notices to user talk page have been deleted. Has reverted 9 times. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Page protected for a week

Both editors blocked The IP for 2 weeks due to previous history of edit warring; Doctorhawkes for 24 hours ... 3RRNO did not cover those reverts. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:62.165.217.142 reported by User:Sirfurboy (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:King Arthur (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 62.165.217.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154577811 by Dudley Miles (talk) That doesn't mean you can violate the First Amendment"
2. 06:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154470815 by Dudley Miles (talk)"
3. 17:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154418668 by Sirfurboy (talk) You can't WP:CENSOR other users"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:King Arthur‎."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154416602 by 62.165.217.142 (talk) WP:NOTFORUM"
2. 06:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154547436 by 62.165.217.142 (talk) Stop edit warring."
3. 08:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC) on Talk:King Arthur "Undid revision 1154548899 by Sirfurboy (talk)This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for irrelevant speculations"

Comments:

Editor has minimal edits but is trying to place a disruptive discussion about a hypothetical on the article talk page that has nothing to do with improving the page. I left a message in the 3RR warning on their talk page about asking general questions at the teahouse. Despite the warning, they have reverted material in again. (Note the last diff was an error by the editor, so look at the history. The edsum was an attempt to tell the IP what they were doing wrong. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2023 (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 is not to say the editor isn't being disruptive. It has been seven hours since their last edit; if he resumes again certainly some action (a protection could work just as well) will be necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:148.252.141.75 reported by User:Technopat (Result: Blocked)

Page: Economy of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 148.252.141.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "Updating image and removed repeated text, it already says the UK is a leading wind energy power."
2. 22:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "Removing repeated text"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC) to 21:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 21:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "Removing repeated text"
   2. 21:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Education */"
4. 14:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "Economy of London"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I updated an image and removed repeated text in the energy section. I did nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.141.75 (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what I've done wrong? Somebody reverted my edits due to POV, I asked why on my talk page and they righlty told me what was POV. I removed the POV, and updated the leading image, changed the education sector section slightly to remove not needed links, and removed repeated text in the energy sector section. I'm a bit shocked at why my edits are being reverted and I'm being targeted in such way. --148.252.141.75 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – User:2economist2 blocked indef per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/148.252.141.75 due to behavioral resemblance, IP blocked one week. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:68.129.18.181 reported by User:Doncsecz~enwiki (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jesús Franco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Lina Romay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.129.18.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]
[91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
68.129.18.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) edit war in the articles Jesús Franco and Lina Romay. It keeps deleting the sourced editings. Probably a Italo-Spanish movie fan vandal. Doncsecz^talk 07:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Question: maybe User:68.129.18.181=User:HerbLightman? Doncsecz^talk 07:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – IP blocked one month as an apparent sock of User:HerbLightman. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Crows Yang reported by User:Editorkamran (Result: Warned)

Page: Sino-Soviet border conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crows Yang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:14, 14 May 2023 - Don't delete contents supported by reliable sources!
2. 02:50, 14 May 2023‎ -‎ Undid revision 1154644910 by Extorc (talk)
3. 05:04, 13 May 2023‎ - Then let's see what's gonna happen. I won't let it become your private property!!!
4. 03:28, 13 May 2023‎ - Undid revision 1154516418 by Editorkamran (talk)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

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

Comments:

Frequently threatening in edit summaries that he won't stop the edit war.[101][102] Editorkamran (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Result: User:Crows Yang is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert at Sino-Soviet border conflict unless they have obtained a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Masrialltheway reported by User:Sarah SchneiderCH (Result: Declined)

Page: Genetic history of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "Added the sources for the presence of these haplogroups in both ancient and modern Egyptians, which is exactly what is stated in the caption, i.e., "Two haplogroups, E1b1b and J, that are carried by both ancient and modern Egyptians", and which is exactly what the sources are cited for. I'm against citation clutter in the caption, when it is taken directly from the article's content, but here are the sources anyway."
2. 19:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "There is no speculation, I don't even know what you think is being speculative here, please don't be ambiguous. I'll add the source for their existence in both ancient and modern Egyptians in my next edit, even though the citation clutter is unnecessary, and I discussed this already in the summaries. Please don't ignore what I'm detailing in my summaries and simply revert. I'll add the sources anyway in the next edit."
3. 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) "@Sarah: The entire study is about it, and it states the origin of both E-M35 and E-M78, because data from Noerhteast Africa was not available in earlier studies. As to the presence of E1b1b and J in both Ancient and Modern Egyptian, That is taken directly from the content of the article, we can use the sources in the article, but that is not necessary in a caption, please refer to my edit summaries (Parts A&B&C) below, I addressed every point you raised in detail."
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) to 22:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "Restored unexplained removal of content. Part A: 1) That the haplogroups E1b1b and J are carried by both ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians is taken directly from the studies in the article. 2) Image captions should follow the article's content, relate the main subject, and generally should not be cluttered by too many citations when the statement is apparent from the article’s content. 3) Cruciani (2007) was cited specifically for the E-M78 subclade of E1b1b, which discusses... [see Part B]"
   2. 21:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "Part B: 3) Cruciani (2007) was cited specifically for the E-M78 subclade of E1b1b, which discusses its origin in detail in this 2007 study, Sarah is talking in her edit summaries about the parents E-M215 and E-M35. 4) Sarah removed the cited Cruciani (2007), which discusses the origin of E-M78, and replaced it by Cruciani (2004), and said in her summaries that the caption was “attributing facts”, this is not a good thing to do, but I will assume good faith. [see Parts A&C]"
   3. 21:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "Part C: 5) This is not an article about the Middle East or North Africa in general, the general distribution is not the focus here so as to make it the sole or main point in this image caption, the caption should be about the main subject of the article. This distribution is to be relegated to the specific haplogroup articles or the Middle East article, it is also obvious from the images. The content is sound and satisfies WP:CAP and should not be removed. [see Parts A&B of this edit summary]"
   4. 21:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "This should be described properly instead of just saying that it is a “predominantly European haplogroup”. The study states that H is: “the most common mtDNA lineage in Europe and is found also in parts of present-day Africa and western Asia.” The other source is not a study, it is flashy journalism used as a poor justification for throwing in the phrase “European heritage”. “Shocking truth” flashy journalism does not belong here. I also added the presence of H in modern Egyptians."
   5. 21:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "The study does not simply say “European in origin”, here is what the study actually says, which was removed, and I will also restore the statement about the presence of U5 in modern Egyptian Berbers, which was removed, I believe accidentally. Also, again, flashy journalism does not belong here, which is the second source cited here (i.e., independent dot co dot uk)."
   6. 22:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "Clarifications and precision. First off, I objected to this entire addition a while back on the talk page, but I won’t remove it unless I get agreement. I’ll focus on at least making it precise and slightly more concise. The parent M35 itself is not the dominant clade in Egypt, its subclade M78 is, so the presence of M35 in Omotic pop. is not the a focal point here; this is not an article about M35 or Omotic pop.. The PN2 mutation has nothing to do with Egyptians (table 2 in the source)."
   7. 22:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "/* 2018 study of Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht */ “Famous people on Eupedia” is not a source. Eupedia, which is not a source itself, links to a forum, which is the most horrible thing to do to the reader here. Forums are not sources. The article seems to have attracted spam. Please keep the nonsensical black-white dichotomy fights away from this article."
   8. 22:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "Keita did not “analyse” anything, did not “use” any algorithms, is not conducting a “study”, and therefore he cannot “conclude” anything; presenting Keita’s commentary as a “study” with these misleading words is terribly misleading. Keita is commenting as usual and sneaking in his semi-Afrocentric two cents as he usually does. This “Ideas about Race” piece adds nothing more than Keita’s personal two cents. Please refer to comments in this talk section"
   9. 22:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "/* 2020 study of Takabuti */ Removing another journalism source that does not belong here, and is superfluously cited anyway."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello, there is no edit-warring on my part. Here is what happened. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk · contribs) reverted an edit I made earlier, wherein I restored her unexplained removal of content and I wrote three edit summaries (diff1, diff2), diff3) explaining in detail why the content should remain (in particular that the source says exactly what it is cited for in the image caption, and that the first statement in the caption is taken directly from the article's content, and therefore citation clutter can be avoided in the caption). Sarah removed it again (diff), ignoring my explanations in my summaries, I restored and tried to explain again (diff), but Sarah reverted again (diff), ignoring what I said again, so I told her that I will add the sources (diff), and I add them (diff). But Sarah, came right ahead to file for edit-warring, even though there was no edit-warring attitude on my part whatsoever. I explained and added the sources when I saw that she is ignoring my explanations. In fact, Sarah kept reverting and ignoring what I'm saying in a typical bad attitude. So, I'm actually here to ask for her behavior to be looked at; and if this is to be considered a case of gaming the system on her part? I had as much of a reason to report Sarah, if this is even proper in this case, but this is my first interaction with her and I interacted in good faith; I assumed good faith and assumed the assumption of good faith, which is obvious from my attempts to explain in detail in the edit summaries. Please also note that in the section "Diffs of the user's reverts" above, 1, 2, and 3 are relevant, and under 4, only the first 3 are relevant from earlier, they are the single edit made over three edit summaries from earlier, which I'm referring to above, because I wanted to explain in detail in the edit summary, and I'm providing all of these diffs in this comment. Masrialltheway (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

That's what talk pages are for. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

You have not explained how your edits do not violate the Three revert rule. You have just tried to make a case for why you think your edits should be exempt from that rule. So far I'm not seeing anything that even comes close to being one of the limited exemptions explained at that policy. Note that "thinking you are right" is not one of them. Also, please note that spending more than half of your defense talking about the other editor's actions is not going to help your case. General Ization ^Talk 23:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@General Ization: Did I break the 3RR? I stopped at exactly three reverts (diff, diff, diff), providing the sources in the last one. I had to mention the other user only because I really feel like a have been dragged into something while maintaining good faith in trying to resolve an issue. Or are all the above diffs listed as "reverts"? In which case, How? These are not things that were added or edits just made and I reverted or removed, I was merely editing, which normally involves checking certain things to see if they are well sourced, I removed some bad citation from journalism and a forum (because the article is about the scientific evidence not journalism and forums), fixed certain statements, and added well sourced content at the same time in the same edits, I don't believe that is reverting. Am I completely lost in regard to how this works? Masrialltheway (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears to me that this (diff 4.1 in the list above) is the first revert:

21:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) "Restored unexplained removal of content. ..."

The 8 consecutive edits that followed include comments that make it clear that you were trying to restore the state of the article to an earlier version, though it is unclear to me specifically which version you are attempting to revert to. Per WP:3RR, the consecutive edits with diffs numbered 4.1 through 4.9 count as one revert. Diffs 1, 2 and 3 are attempts to revert to essentially the same content as existed after the edit marked 4.9, as at that point you were exchanging reverts with Sarah SchneiderCH. Note that 3RR states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. The fact that the edits you were reversing in the initial sequence were not (only) those performed by Sarah SchneiderCH does not matter. General Ization ^Talk 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the biggest problem here is not that you have an "edit warring attitude", as I believe you put it, but that you are abusing the edit summary while forcing your changes into the article, instead of talking with other editors on the article's Talk page to reach consensus on the change or changes before making them, even after you are aware that other editors disagree with them. General Ization ^Talk 02:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@General Ization: Okay, thank you for clarifying, things are becoming more clear to me now, it seems that Sarah SchneiderCH was paying more attention to this than I did; I was focused solely on resolving the issue. I'm not trying at all to argue my way out of the 3RR here, if I broke it then it was by oversight on my part due to how quickly the last exchange happened, and I have no argument out of it, what I'm only arguing for here is that I'm not edit-warring at all, that's not my attitude, I try my best to explain in detail any edit that I make. I resort to the talk page, but the issue was just whether or not to add these sources in the caption. I should have been more careful, or added the sources right away in a single edit. In fact, in the second revert in my exchange with Sarah SchneiderCH, I was just asking her to wait until I add the sources in my next edit and explicitly asked her not to revert, which is a very bad and uncalculated move on my part, because Sarah SchneiderCH cleverly didn't wait and reverted, if she had waited, the last two could have counted as one revert. I don't know if that counts for something. Masrialltheway (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe you may be trying to enforce your own perspective, which goes against the rules here. Wikipedia is not a platform for imposing personal opinions or tailoring articles to individual preferences. The sources you provided in your submission are not scientific or universally accepted, and they do not align with the existing content. Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sarah SchneiderCH: What you are saying is absolutely false, every single bit of it. These cited sources (1, 2, 3) are scientific genetic studies. They absolutely corroborate the statements they are directly cited for; they are cited thus: “Two haplogroups, E1b1b and J, that are carried by both ancient and modern Egyptians.^{[1], [2], [3]} The subclade E-M78 of E1b1b is suggested to have originated in Northeast Africa in the area of Egypt and Libya, and is more predominant in Egypt.^[3]" Please stop, this is a bad behavior. You also just reverted again a few hours ago (diff). I really have to ask again for this user's behavior to be looked at. Masrialltheway (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Masrialltheway: Your content dispute with another editor belongs at Talk:Genetic history of Egypt, not here at WP:EWN. Unless and until you are able to reach consensus with other editors on the content you are trying to add to the article, that content must not be added to the article. Consensus does not require unanimity, but you must actually make an effort to achieve consensus with other editors, not simply force your changes into the article. You are not doing so at this time. It appears that Sarah SchneiderCH returned the content of the article to a version that reflected the consensus prior to the changes you were edit warring over, which is appropriate under these circumstances. Sarah SchneiderCH did not exceed 3RR. Also, your comment about that editor "cleverly" reverting your edit yesterday implies that you are failing to assume good faith, and your claim that her actions caused you to exceed 3RR shows that you still don't understand why we are having this conversation. General Ization ^Talk 00:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sarah SchneiderCH: It should be noted that you also have a responsibility to participate in the discussion of these edits on the article's Talk page now that Masrialltheway has taken the discussion there. You may not simply try to preserve the current version without participating in a discussion that could potentially lead to a new consensus (which may or may not reflect your personal opinion on the matter). You could have tried to redirect the discussion to the Talk page previously, rather than merely reverting the changes. I don't see that you did so until yesterday's edit war was already underway. General Ization ^Talk 00:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Declined per above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Firstgold reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Slash (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 20:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 18:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Slash (musician)."
2. 20:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Slash (musician)."
3. 20:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) "/* May 2023 */ + Section header"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

User:69.115.104.232 reported by User:Spiralthebandicoot (Result: Declined)

Page: Unicorn: Warriors Eternal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of Cartoon Network Studios productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.115.104.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [104]
2. [105]
3. [106]
4. [107]
5. [108]
6. [109]
7. [110]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [113]

Comments:

• Declined There may be slow edit warring between several editors, but it's not limited to this IP editor and the IP editor hasn't violated 3RR. The red box at Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule says that An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert so sequential edits without any intervening edits count as a single revert. This means that this sequence of edits is one revert and this is the second. On List of Cartoon Network Studios productions the first diff doesn't appear to be a revert, so there's two reverts there as well. They also haven't edited since this warning was placed. I suggest using the talk pages and providing sources that support the content being reinserted rather than relying on what looks like WP:OR. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Editorkamran reported by User:Crows Yang (Result: OP blocked)

Page: Sino-Soviet border conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editorkamran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:54, 13 May 2023 - enough sources were provided on talk page to establish that this was a Soviet victory
2. 00:57, 13 May 2023 - added multiple sources discussed on talk page
3. 04:45, 13 May 2023 - Not gonna happen
4. 13:03, 4 May 2023 - Sources treat it as a single conflict
5. 20:46, 3 May 2023 - Reverted 2 edits by 75.102.211.45 (talk) to last revision by DestructibleTimes

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [117]

Comments:
Frequently deleting other editors' edits despite that fact that the deleted contents were supported by reliable sources[118][119][120][121]

Note This appears to be a retaliatory report in return for the one made above. Editorkamran has not edited the article since that report was made, and their own edits were likely scrutanised by the closing admin. I recommend that Crows Yang close this thread themselves as this is a content dispute that should be discussed on the talk page; this kind of tit-for-tat report is disruptive. — Czello ^(music) 07:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked Crows Yang for 31 hours. After being warned at the discussion above, their next act was to post this meritless retaliatory filing. That wasn't the brightest of ideas. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Правда ли это reported by User:Very Average Editor (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Martinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Правда ли это (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [122] fourth revert
2. [123] third revert
3. [124] I re removed the content the first user had, agreeing it was spammy and non encyclopedic
4. [125] original revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127] - this is on their talk page and not the article, but shows they are not interested in discussion

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [128]

Comments:The user is adding what appears to be spam, as well as biased "warnings" about other small organizations. They refuse to engage outside of reverts. Very Average Editor (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Spam only account. Courcelles (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Spdrcr19 reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Partial Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Bill Hynes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Spdrcr19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "Reverting to when the page has factual sourced content of a living person. Previous content was not sourced and made up"
2. 07:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155037529 by JML1148 (talk)"
3. 07:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "Revert due to lack of sources and facts. Other posters are vandalizing page"
4. 07:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bill Hynes."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Partially blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Thomediter reported by User:IceWelder (Result: No violation)

Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155067851 by IceWelder (talk)"
2. 12:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155066990 by IceWelder (talk)I disagree"
3. 12:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1154958823 by IceWelder (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been warned for disruptive editing several times in the past and repeatedly engaged in edit warring in recent weeks, including at Eurovision Song Contest 2024, Module:Political party/G, Module:Political party/R, and several related modules and articles.

In the most recent case, the user is trying to force their version of an infobox parameter over the established version (which carries an explanatory comment), saying only "I disagree". When asked to seek consensus as per WP:BRD, the user made another revert without any comment, therein breaking WP:3RR. IceWelder [✉] 13:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand, I will stop, I apologize for my unprofessional behaviour. thomediter

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. Also per above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Daviddayag reported by User:ZaperaWiki44 (Result: Declined – malformed report)

Page: Andromeda Galaxy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Daviddayag (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:

WP:3RR violation over the lead picture for M31 despite criticism and the consensus per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Lead Picture for Andromeda Galaxy. It is also very probable that he is not even here to contribute to Wikipedia but instead rather makes self-promotion his own image(s) while disregarding any accuracy concerns. Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 11:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake because I did not know how to create properly a report. Is it possible to make a new one now? Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 11:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the declined notice just above tells you what to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I advise using Twinkle to create a new report, as it automates a lot of it for you and isn't likely to be malformed. — Czello ^(music) 11:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Tried to use it (per tag) but it did not allow me to edit 3 boxes for unknown reason, but it may be because the user only did only 3 reverts within 48 hours (in which it should be 4 reverts within 48 h I guess) as I did realised right now. So it may be why Twinkle did not work in the first place. BTW, it is already said in the later report. Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

4 reverts within 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Daviddayag reported by User:ZaperaWiki44 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [138]

Comments:

Decided to remake the report due to it being malformed

Possible WP:3RR violation over the lead picture for M31 despite given warnings and the overwehlming consensus per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy#Lead Picture for Andromeda Galaxy. It is also very probable that he is not even here to contribute to Wikipedia but instead rather makes self-promotion his own image(s) while disregarding any accuracy concerns. Regards—ZaperaWiki44^{(✉/Contribs)} 12:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that Daviddayag does not deserve sanctions, but he has not violated 3RR. One of the reverts listed above occurred on April 27.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Result: User:Daviddayag is warned. He may be blocked if he reverts again at Andromeda Galaxy without first obtaining a consensus for his change on a talk page. So far he does not have consensus at the astronomy wikiproject. His edits to the Andromeda Galaxy article do seem to qualify as self-promotion of his own images. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Juan.Alvarez6 reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: Partial blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: Juan.Alvarez6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155329720 by Frukko (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC) to 17:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 17:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155328955 by Frukko (talk)"
   2. 17:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC) to 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 17:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155319735 by Frukko (talk)"
   2. 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 17:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155318320 by Frukko (talk)"
5. 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155316019 by Frukko (talk)"
6. 16:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155314246 by Frukko (talk) let's talk about it in the talk section. I don't understand your point deleting referenced information."
7. 16:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155298255 by Frukko (talk) The references given are valid"
8. Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC) to 14:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155046489 by Frukko (talk)"
   2. 14:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "The user Frukko deleted good references."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Agnolotti."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (partial) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Frukko reported by User:Julietdeltalima (Result: Partial blocked 24 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 18:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
4. 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
5. 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
6. 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
7. 16:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
8. 15:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) ""
9. Consecutive edits made from 09:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC) to 09:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 09:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Overview */"
   3. 09:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Overview */"
   4. 09:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Overview */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Agnolotti."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (partial) — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Vasltunnma and User:Historianengineer reported by User:Adakiko (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Page: Caput Mundi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
Vasltunnma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Historianengineer (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:

• Note the ten +/-488 edits

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

• User talk:Vasltunnma - first edit to user's talk page
• Historianengineer

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] The two are discussing somewhat on talk:Caput Mundi Adakiko (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• Vasltunnma
• Historianengineer
• Added ANEW diffs Adakiko (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

Not otherwise involved. Adakiko (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

User:WMrapids reported by User:Alejandro Basombrio (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

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

Previous version reverted to: [139]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140] - →‎Signatories
2. [141] -
3. [142] - Deletion of previous sources that don't fit with his POV as he calls them "questionable sources"
4. [143] - Removal of word as WP:LABEL

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144] Re-adding of "far-right" despite violating WP:SOURCECOUNTING, WP:LABEL and at some level WP:NPOV

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145] I tried to contact with him on his Talk page, yet he deletes my comments from there and accuses me of being a "Single Purpose account".

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [146]

Comments:

User perpetrating the "edit war" wants to keep unnecessary sources in the article just for support his claim of "Vox" being "far-right" although the article of that party describes it "right-wing to far-right".

 Comment: User has already been previously reported as a single purpose account that has whitewashed articles involving right-wing politics and has introduced poor sources to justify their edits. Hopefully those reviewing this can see this has nothing to do with my POV and only has to do with the quality of sources the user tried to use for controversial edits, including opinion articles and an "expatriate" news blog "Olive Press". Also, the charge regarding the Wikipedia essay WP:SOURCECOUNTING is bogus as the user is projecting their own behavior onto me (i.e. listing "Olive Press" and opinion articles to justify their own edits). Other users have also noticed this user's behavior, so also take that into account. Many of my edits were performed to clean up following the user's dubious edits. --WMrapids (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

First, WP:FOC. Little has to do my history of reports when in this case we are disccuting about your edits, not mine. It's false that I'm a SPA (I participate in the creation of SVG, PNG for the Wikimedia Commons project and have been editing in the English Wikipedia like for two years)

----

About the sources I used to make the point of VOX as a "populist right" party instead of a "far-right" party, I added them to avoid an counter the WP:CHERRYPICKING you committed to call it far-right, despite multiple specialists calling it a right-wing party. The sources I added are already used in both the English Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia article about Vox. Before I added them, I didn't know about the WP:LABEL or the WP:SOURCECOUNTING, that's why I retract and I see a preferable option to delete the term since it is very conflictive.

----

"Other users have noticed this user's behavior" only one user has reverted my edit in that article and still violates the WP:LABEL rule (it's highly debatable to label Riva-Aguero as "fascist" since most sources describe him as "conservative" or "reactionary").

----

As I told you before, focus now on the content. Don't avoid me messaging you on Talk Page. While some reliable source call Vox as far-right, other reliable sources call it right-wing. In this case, I reverted the adjective to avoid [WP:LABEL]] Articles that mention the "party Vox" (the exact words) mostly avoid using labels [147], calling it "Spanish political party Vox" or simply "Political Party Vox". Some of them call it "national-conservative party Vox" or "Spanish nationalist party VOX". Directly all the pages that call it "far-right political party Vox" are the ones you edited [148] while adding information of the Madrid Charter. Stop claiming you don't have a POV. Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Your editing history is completely relevant in this discussion and other users (including myself) have attempted to assume good faith with you. Vox has been widely described as a far-right party and José de la Riva-Agüero y Osma literally created the Peruvian Fascist Brotherhood, so again, please don't project your feelings regarding POV on me. In an attempt to make things go smoothly in the future, I suggest you read WP:BRD. WMrapids (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids and Alejandro Basombrio: I don't see a 3RR violation here, but I do see an empty talk page. I suggest you start a discussion there rather than argue in edit summaries. If you find yourselves at an impasse you can invite other people to join the discussion at WP:3O or by starting an WP:RfC. – bradv 02:00, 18 May 2023 (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. – bradv 02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Sagatorium reported by User:Hey man im josh (Result: Blocked from both articles for a week)

Page: Jartavius Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:Washington Commanders roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sagatorium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At Jartavius Martin:

1. [149]
2. [150]
3. [151]
4. [152]
5. [153]

At Template:Washington Commanders roster

1. [154]
2. [155]
3. [156]
4. [157]
5. [158]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [160]

Comments:
As a bit of context, cornerbacks, safeties, and nickelbacks are all considered defensive backs. Martin's role is not defined yet but Sagatorium is repeatedly trying to be more specific with the player's position than what has been offered up by the team. Sagatorium specified Martin's position as cornerback, despite Martin being the only player with a position of "DB" (short for defensive back) on the team's website.[161] Martin played both cornerback and safety in college, which is a big part of why his position is yet to be determined, the team has to figure out where they want him. In Sagatorium's most recent change to Martin's article, they cherry picked a link which listed the player solely as a cornerback, whereas numerous other sources refer to him as a DB.[162][163][164][165][166] Even the pick itself, at the draft, was announced as defensive back.[167]

Sagatorium has been adding speculative information, often in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, for quite some time now. It's worse during the NFL off-season (now) with rosters constantly changing. It doesn't help that most of the time they revert others without using an edit summary. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from both articles. User's attitude in talk page discussions didn't help his case. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Elttaruuu reported by User:Maxen Embry (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to: (none provided)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (no link provided)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (no link provided)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: (no link provided)

Comments:

Both editors blocked for two weeks from editing this specific article only; Elttaruuu warned against casting aspersions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Amoakgusd reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Scotland."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Return to slow-warring same edit that led to an earlier block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2A02:2F0F:F003:4A00:D47B:578E:6638:D225 reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: /64 range blocked one week)

Page: African Queens (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:2F0F:F003:4A00:D47B:578E:6638:D225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [172]
2. [173]
3. [174]
4. [175]

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

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

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

Comments:

• /64 range blocked one week. This probably could have also been reported at WP:AIV. The range had already been blocked a couple days ago for 31h, and the disruption is at other articles as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Mitrayasna reported by User:SilverLocust (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Early history of animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mitrayasna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 14:22, 18 May 2023 "Undid revision 1155514341 by Joortje1 (talk)You do not have good intentions. There is no problem with the text. You are just waging an editorial war. You have no reason for your work"
• 14:21, 18 May 2023 "Undid revision 1155514390 by Joortje1 (talk)You do not have good intentions. There is no problem with the text. You are just waging an editorial war. You have no reason for your work"
• 14:20, 18 May 2023 "Undid revision 1155515186 by Joortje1 (talk)You do not have good intentions. There is no problem with the text. You are just waging an editorial war. You have no reason for your work"
• 13:22, 18 May 2023 "Undid revision 1155439991 by Joortje1 (talk)Content with an authentic source cannot be deleted arbitrarily"
• 01:06, 18 May 2023 "Undid revision 1155272178 by Joortje1 (talk)Do not delete useful and resourceful information"
• (Among other instances at that page and at Animation. The above edits are just those that show a WP:3RR violation.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [181]

Comments:

• Posting comment: This is part of wider edit warring behavior by Mitrayasna on Animation and Early history of animation regarding an image of an ancient Iranian cup (with disputed caption and relevance) that Mistrayasna added to the page. Mitrayasna keeps reverting edits of various users to maintain that image and text relating to it. (Note that User:Joortje1 also violated WP:3RR in the incident listed in the diffs above.) There has been significant discussion at Talk:Animation#Before cinematography trying to resolve the content dispute, but Mitrayasna has been intransigent in insisting upon the image and text remaining, over the reasoned objections of Janke (talk · contribs), Coolcaesar (talk · contribs), Joortje1 (talk · contribs), and myself (SilverLocust (talk · contribs)), which Mitrayasna has dismissed as false.
  (Disclosure: While I have not edited Early history of animation, I have made four edits on Animation, starting a few weeks ago. My first edit was to clarify the misleading caption of the image after checking the citations, and to urge Mitrayasna and others to stop edit warring. Two of my edits were reverts to maintain the WP:StatusQuo from before the dispute arose while discussion continued. I proposed this first on the talk page, but Mitrayasna refused saying that the reasons others were giving were false. (I thought WP:StatusQuo was a policy, but it is actually an essay.) Most recently, I added a Template:Disputed inline tag (03:47, 18 May 2023) that Mitrayasna inappropriately removed (14:10, 18 May 2023).)
  — SilverLocust (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• There has been no 3RR violation by Mistrayasna at Early history of animation. Mistrayasna reverted 3x not 4x. Some of the diffs listed above are part of a series of consecutive edits and do not count as multiple reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• Posting comment: For a better understanding of these conflicts, I request the administrators to go to the discussion page of the animation article first and look there. At first, there were many discussions. Then user SilverLocust made an edit, both user Janke (talk · contribs) and I accepted that edit and the edit war was over for a month. Then, without any discussion, the photo and text were deleted by the user Janke (talk · contribs) due to its length. I solved the long problem, but they did not accept it. I said let's go back to the previous conditions and then discuss, they refused. On the Early history of animation page, something similar happened. with a shorter period of time Mitrayasna (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  Another thing he did on that page was that he accepted my text with his own correction, but removed its source so that in the future there would be a way to remove it completely. And when I returned my second source, which was the most important source, it started an edit war on the Early history of animation page. Mitrayasna (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours When you're reverting several other people, often more than once, over a couple of days, it doesn't matter what you said or did on the talk page or that you did not violate 3RR with any single series. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

User:148.252.128.49 reported by User:CandyScythe (Result: blocked for 3 months)

Page: List of TV series produced by Walt Disney Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 148.252.128.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "COULD YOU PLEASE STOP REVERTING IT BACK!!!????"
2. 07:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "CAN YOU NOT REVERT IT BACK!?"
3. 07:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "This article had no sources. And this one was supposed to be redirected to the main one A FEW YEARS AGO!"
4. 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "This article is now being redirected permanently."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of TV series produced by Walt Disney Studios."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note: Same person as currently blocked User:85.255.236.206 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandyScythe (talk • contribs) 07:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months (I originally partially blocked from the one article for one month, but then I saw the editing from the other IP address, and decided that wasn't enough.) JBW (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Noloader reported by User:CNMall41 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to: [182]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [183]
2. [184]
3. [185]

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:
This is part of multiple edit wars from user on two pages as well as a WP:CIVIL issue. User has been attempting to introduce DOB and conviction information into an already contention page at Jeremy Dewitte. Despite being reverted and told that the source cannot be used, user still reverts, one time saying that I must be Jeremy Dewitte or that my account is fake (which I assure you is not). Warned user on their user page under an existing edit warring notice they received earlier today for another page (Null pointer). Subject still reverted despite the warning, including an edit summary accusing me of being a "lazy user" (twice including doing so on a previous revert). Note that I likely have 3RR on this page myself but the addition of the source is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY ("Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person"), an exemption of 3RR (please correct me if I am mistaken). Relevant discussion with another editor about ANEW on the talk page of Jeremy Dewitte as I did not attempt to discuss on the talk page. However, editor is warring on another page as well and not engaging in a discussion on that talk page started by another editor (and also reverting on that page twice since that talk page discussion was started).

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Samygeosquid reported by User:Zefr (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Colossal squid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "This is only a small size change"
2. 16:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Only the squids length"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Colossal squid."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

New user was edit-warring today as a mobile IP, created this username, and began edit-warring again over an unsourced, impossible dimension for the topic animal; 5x in total. Suggest temp block to alter behavior. Zefr (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked the named account as this is borderline vandalism, and also blocked Special:contributions/2A02:C7E:2E86:6300:0:0:0:0/64 for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

A bunch from the large 2a02::/16 pools have been analogously disupting:

• Talk:Colossal squid (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

since Febriuary. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:MiltenR reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks from the article namespace)

Page: Genetic studies on Bulgarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC) to 19:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 19:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Y-DNA */Added content and reliable relevant sources"
   2. 19:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "/* mtDNA */Added content and reliable relevant sources"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC) to 16:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
   1. 16:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155537401 by Jingiby (talk) - good revision, I will do it again later"
   2. 16:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155536719 by StephenMacky1 (talk) - reverting edit that deleted relevant information with relevant reliable sources"
   3. 16:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155457342 by Jingiby (talk)"
   4. 16:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155454093 by Jingiby (talk)"
   5. 16:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155453545 by Jingiby (talk)"
   6. 16:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Added content - reliable relevant sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
2. 17:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "/* May 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hello. The editor in question added unreliably sourced and pro-fringe content, for which they were reverted, but they proceeded to restore it multiple times. The whole affair actually began on 17th May and continued until today. The reverts appeared to be indiscriminate too, since an edit removing unsourced material was reverted. I clarified the matter on their talk page, but it had no effect. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources are reliable - Bulgarian National Radio, NIH

(National Library of Medicine) -

National Center for Blotechnology information in US, etc. I revert edits that delete relevant information with relevant reliable sources MiltenR (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing articles directly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2600:100F:B138:3137:DC50:7E4C:C9D2:C65E reported by User:Partofthemachine (Result: Blocked)

Page: Creation Museum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:100F:B138:3137:DC50:7E4C:C9D2:C65E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [188]

Comments:

This user has been edit warring to remove the term "pseudoscience" from Creation Museum despite multiple warnings. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Siteblocked for aggressive POV pushing/proselytizing. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

User:151.19.24.157 reported by User:Maxxhiato (Result: Article semi-protected for 3 weeks)

Page: Holy Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 151.19.24.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155775927 by Maxxhiato (talk) changes require sources, see talk page (wikipedia is not source for wikipedia)"
2. 16:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155758358 by Maxxhiato (talk) changes require sources and only if necessary discussions"
3. 19 May 2023
4. 19 May 2023

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Talk page HRE */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Infobox Map */ new section"
2. 16:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Infobox Map 2 */ Reply"

Comments:

This IP and others from Italy (151.37.37.64 & 151.57.25.145) are changing the Holy Roman Empire infobox map. I tried to redirect them to the talk page & archive, which explains why their particular map was not chosen. I hope I'm doing this right. I have no idea. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

changes require sources; wikipedia is not source for wikipedia. I have tried in every way to make you understand that there are some problems between the map and the description of the map based on the sources cited.--151.19.24.157 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Page protected for 3 weeks. This was really the more desirable option, given that it cannot be determined whether the Wind IPs (all of which, as noted, resolve to different regions of Italy) are the same editor or not, not at least without checkuser. The article hasn't been semi'ed in five years or so, yes, but since the last protection was for two weeks I went with three this time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry. Should the old map be restored? I haven't really done anything like this before. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, you can do that. It's not full-protected, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Tayeb188 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Blocked 24h No block was necessary)

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

User being reported: Tayeb188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "since we have agreed in the talk page about Massinissa and Massylii"
2. 09:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1155733987 by Gog the Mild (talk)"
3. 13:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) "added the Massylii who have fought in this battle with the command of Massinissa"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Battle of Zama */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Massylii role in the battle */ add"
2. 13:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Massylii role in the battle */ expand"
3. 15:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Massylii role in the battle */ Reply"
4. 18:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Massylii role in the battle */ Reply"
5. 00:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC) "/* Massylii role in the battle */ Reply"

Comments:

In addition to the three diffs listed above (assembled by Twinkle's wizard), they added the same content two further times on the 17th and 18th of May. I'm WP:INVOLVED, but I told them yesterday that I would report them if they reinstated the edit without talk page consensus, and they did just that so here we are. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Noting that this report can be closed without action - the user has indicated on their talk page that they don't have consensus, so hopefully that will be an end of it. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Unblocked per above. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Samyakta2255 and User:ShahNman reported by User:Kj cheetham (Result: )

Page: Chandraprabha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Samyakta2255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ShahNman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [193] and [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [196] and [197]

Comments:

These two users seem to have been going back and forth on this article since around 30th April. No response to my talk page messages at all. Glancing at their other contribution may be similar situation on other articles, but I've only looked at this one myself. The diffs of user reverts I listed are just examples, not all of them. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:BangJan1999 reported by User:Katakana546 (Result: No violation)

Page: Everton Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BangJan1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everton_Fox&oldid=1156253421

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everton_Fox&diff=1156254866&oldid=1156253421
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everton_Fox&diff=1156256874&oldid=1156254866
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Everton_Fox&diff=1156258429&oldid=1156256874

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katakana546

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

Comments:

• No violation. Katakana546, this is an abusive report. You tagged the Fox article for speedy deletion per WP:A7. BangJan1999 removed the tag with an edit summary explaining their reasoning, which they were entitled to do. You restored the tag with an edit summary that confused the removal of tags by page creators vs. other editors. BangJan1999 removed it again with an edit summary responding to your misunderstanding of policy. You then PRODded the article. You were the one who disrupted the article. BangJan1999, regardless of anything else, reverted only twice. The second diff above is one of your reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Enmanuelgac reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked from Article space)

Page:

Royal Caribbean International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Royal Caribbean Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
TUI Cruises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Royal Caribbean International

1. 09:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1156328775 by Czello (talk)"
2. 09:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1156328404 by Czello (talk)"
3. 08:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1156316562 by Murgatroyd49 (talk)"
4. 08:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC) "update"

Royal Caribbean Group

1. [198]
2. [199]
3. [200]
4. [201]
5. [202]

TUI Cruises

1. [203]
2. [204]
3. [205]
4. [206]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Comments:

User has been asked to discuss on talk page per WP:BRD several times, yet they never have. In fact they only have 2 talk page posts out of nearly 1000 edits. Similar edit warring is taking place across several other articles, such as TUI Cruises. — Czello ^(music) 09:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Courcelles indefinitely blocked Enmanuelgac from Article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Joanneplums reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to::

• 18:54, 21 May 2023 by 2A00:23C5:F184:501:8C55:C825:3E89:16CA remove cited text
• 05:41, 22 March 2023 version without photo in infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:10, 22 May 2023 by Joanneplums remove cited text
2. 09:17, 22 May 2023 by Joanneplums remove cited text
3. 09:18, 22 May 2023 by Joanneplums remove photo in infobox
4. 13:47-48, 22 May 2023‎ by 2A00:23C5:F184:501:9D8E:8AA8:CDCC:C0EF remove cited text and photo in infobox

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Joanneplums#May 2023

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Joanneplums, 2A00:23C5:F184:501:9D8E:8AA8:CDCC:C0EF -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

• Page protected Semi'ed for a few days. Not impressed with the logged out socking, but maybe someone can get them to talk and not just revert. Courcelles (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:2001:638:A004:F000:192:44:85:23 reported by User:Scope creep (Result: Page protected)

University of Erlangen–Nuremberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
192.44.85.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2001:638:a004:f000:192:44:85:23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [207]
2. [208]
3. [209]
4. [210]

Comments: An entry was posted at the coin noticeboard on a now declared coi editor who was making promotional edits to the University of Erlangen–Nuremberg article at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#University of Erlangen–Nuremberg. A talk page discussion was opened and coi editor made an edit request that was highly promotional and it was pushed back, Talk:University of Erlangen–Nuremberg#Request edit on 18 May 2023. Then these two IP editors appeared and have attempt to add similar, almost the exact same type of promotional content that is unsourced. I warned IP editor at User talk:2001:638:A004:F000:192:44:85:23 but it has made no difference. scope_creep^Talk 17:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected for one week. Aoidh (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Tnvol88 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: List of messiah claimants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tnvol88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [211]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [212]
2. [213]
3. [214]
4. [215]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: