Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive471

User:Dangdude11 reported by User:Raladic (Result: Page protected)

Page: 2023 Bud Light boycott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Dangdude11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral. This edit has been discussed at length for days and no sources have been shown to justify the characterization. Advocates for the current language are injecting opinons."
2. 12:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I added a statement characterizing the outlets that referred to the backlash as “left wing”, given their left wing bias. I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
3. 01:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."
4. 01:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "I changed a line where the article indicated that a backlash to the video was had by anti trans individuals and American conservatives. This line was re-characterized as a backlash by people who disagreed with the decision. not everyone boycotting Bud Light is anti trans or conservative. This edit makes the article more neutral."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is pushing their WP:POV on a marked contentious topic and despite warnings on the article talk page then went today immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status and multiple times tried to edit and was subsequently reverted, passing 3rr. Raladic (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, the article is not in compliance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Despite much discussion on the topic, no one can point to any reliable source. I was not warned about this Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule until just now. Dangdude11 (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The topic is clearly marked as a contentious topic on the article talk page, which comes with extra warnings for users before editing. You should familiarize yourself with them before making edits.

It also doesn’t look like your exchanges on the talk page have been particularly constructive as multiple users have refuted your claims and promptly reverted your edit (which you made immediately after gaining autoconfirmed status to even make them - which may be further seen as a way to WP:GAMING the system) as well.

The article protection was now raised under the arbcom enforcement for WP:GENSEX to avoid further disruption. Raladic (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel that you reported me because of a viewpoint that you are advancing. You say that I have been “refuted” in the talk page, but no one can point to a source that supports their position, even by their own admission. In any event, I don’t plan on making any more edits to the page as Wikipedia is showing a systemic bias towards a partisan viewpoint as evidenced by your partial comments here. Dangdude11 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I had included another comment quoting rules for interacting with new editors and for some reason it disappeared. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

"Understand that newcomers are both necessary for and valuable to the community. By helping newcomers, we can increase the range of knowledge, perspectives, and ideas on Wikipedia, thereby preserving its neutrality and integrity as a resource and ultimately increasing its value."

"Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value."

"If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well."

"Assume good faith on the part of newcomers. They most likely want to help out. Give them a chance!"

"Remember Hanlon's Razor. Behavior that appears malicious might be from ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you are 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good Internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not."

I would think that someone who has been around a while would be aware of these rules and should follow them. I indicated that I wasnt aware of the rules and you assumed bad faith.

I am also adding in this exception to the warring policy that justifies my actions

"Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption."

The material I removed and was reported for removing was obviously biased. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  I request an appeal of this decision. My actions were based in part upon not having a full grasp of the rules. I also think my actions are supported by an exception to the three revert rule.

  I did not realize there was such an ideological bias at Wikipedia either. In the future I will be more careful to avoid offending entrenched viewpoints to the point where they feel the need to arbitrarily report me without discussion. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  See above where I was gently guided regarding the characterization of an edit as minor and havent made the same mistake again. That did not happen in this case. I was not made aware of the rules and therefore no sanction is warranted. Dangdude11 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:93.159.183.71 reported by User:Wikipedialuva (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Planetary science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 93.159.183.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166697746 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism by editor who is spamming my talk page with dishonest templates"
2. 06:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166697647 by The Herald (talk) rv vandalism"
3. 06:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166696676 by The Herald (talk) yes, do that"
4. 06:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166630757 by GeogSage (talk) user clearly just dislikes IP edits. no convincing rationale for including this material"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Planetary science."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly blanked their usertalk as well. Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This user has no interest in the content of the page. They have made zero edits to the article or its talk page. They obviously haven't made any attempt to resolve the "dispute", because they have no interest in it. They are merely hoping to "bag" a block. I find such behaviour to be inherently disruptive. Editors should edit to improve articles; this editor is not doing that. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The irrelevant comment that I have removed comments from my own talk page is also malicious in intent. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user: This IP editor sounds a lot like WP:LTA/BKFIP. Sharing the same characteristics of edit warring, arguing in edit summaries, subtly attacking other editors, and removing warnings from their talk pages as previous BKFIPs I have seen and dealt with in the past (e.g. see this archived ANI thread). — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Total nonsense by an editor I have never encountered before, who also has no interest in the content of the article, and whose intent seems to be purely to disrupt. They also clearly do not understand WP:OWNTALK. 93.159.183.71 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Wow, didn't know about the category Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Active. Impressive that you can actually recognize individuals like that. Reading the messages you linked does sound quite a bit like the guest user being discussed in this thread. They immediately assumed my first revert was because they were an IP user, ignoring that as the one who wrote some of what they deleted, I might have legitimate objections. That hostility was a bit of a surprise. Interesting to see this might be an infamous user I crossed paths with. I hope they can stop being hostile to differing viewpoints, as they do seem to be a bit knowledgeable. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 22:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This vandal continues to violate WP:3RR on Planetary Science. — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Calbruce67 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: Calbruce67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Usage in Islamic rituals */ Eleven functions of the use of 'Allah Akbar'"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) to 03:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 14:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "CAIR would be so pleased with Wikipedia advising the world that 'Allah Akbar' is just a cinematic trope."
   2. 23:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Beall's List is discredited. The Journal of Academic Librarianship has confirmed Beall's bias against OA journals."
   3. 23:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Wikipedia can no longer be trusted says co-founder Larry Sanger."
   4. 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Wikipedia is anachronistic says AI."
   5. 02:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Usage by extremists and terrorists */ The New Crusades: Islamophobia and the Global War on Muslims"
   6. 03:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Adding cite"
3. 13:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "Sorry - read the discussion."
4. 13:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "No no! The agreements following the Talk-Discussion are to: 1. Not to include these issues in the Lede and 2. Not to reference specific instances in the text. This highly, RS, inclusion does not conflict with those agreements in the Talk-Discussion."
5. Consecutive edits made from 09:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) to 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 09:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society position"
   2. 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "MOS:ALLAH"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Warning: Edit warring on Takbir. */"
2. 13:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit warring to impose the UNDUE POV */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This "new editor" who keeps edit warring over their POV refuses to join the discussion (despite multiple invites to do so: in the edit summaries, a ping from the TP and a clear message left on their own TP just to make sure that all the bases are covered). Their edit summaries about Wikipedia speaks for themselves. In their last edit, they restored their previous edit which was removed here (by Austronesier, who left a valid explanation on the TP, again ignored by Calbruce67). It's also obvious that Calbruce67 is not "new" given their use of the usual wiki jargon (RS, etc.) that only experienced editors would be familiar with. M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I may be overlooking it, but I see where numbers 1, 3, and 4 above are obvious reverts but I don't see what numbers 2 and 5 are reverts of. @M.Bitton: can you help me out and point out what those diffs are reverts of? - Aoidh (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: I don't know if the other two are obvious reverts or no, but one thing is certain, they keep targetting the same section with the same UNDUE POV and refuse to discuss the issue (leaving the others with no choice but to either revert them or let their POV stand). M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Examining number 2, it's obviously just another attempt at introducing the views of International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society (which was reverted previously). M.Bitton (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I don't see an outright 3RR violation but even outside of the above diffs there is a lot of edit warring for an account with only 18 edits, and not a single use of a talk page of any kind. Aoidh (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Martdj reported by User:MrOllie (Result:Partially blocked 24 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166958526 by MrOllie (talk) Stop this. Your behavior is unworthy of a Wikipedia editor. This paragraph has no place in this article."
2. 20:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166952721 by Newimpartial (talk) This is poorly sourced contentious content. I've explained why in the talk section. Following guidelines, I've removed it. Please, don't undo, but actually discuss."
3. 20:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1166918736 by Reshadp (talk) by Wikipedia policy => Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"
4. 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC) (IP edit) "Removed a defaming paragraph with false claims. The given reference is full of errors and lacks any credibility. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Not a political bulletin. I suggest that the author of the removed paragraph refrains from trying to push his political views and using Wikipedia for this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Proposed statement */ Reply"

Comments:

Profringe edit warring on COVID-19 related article. IP address is obviously the same user, so including that revert as well. MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

They have now self-reverted their edit: diff. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To be clear they self-reverted a 5th edit which is not listed above. I would appreciate that gesture if it weren't accompanied by the spurious retaliatory report below. MrOllie (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Partially blocked – for a period of 24 hours. They made a fifth revert, and did self-revert and went to the talk page afterwards. However, they still violated 3RR after being warned, and after being given a COVID-19 contentious topics notification. On top of this they only began editing the article on July 24 and with the exception of their self-revert, every single edit they have made has been part of this edit-warring. Because they have self-reverted and are using the talk page, the block is a partial block from Martin Kulldorff article itself. - Aoidh (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Martdj (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:59, 24 July 2023‎ MrOllie talk contribs‎ 30,910 bytes +744‎ Reverted 1 edit by Martdj (talk): Stop edit warring to delete properly sourced content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [4]

Comments:

Wikipedia's policy states that when contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. In accordance with this policy, I removed a paragraph which clearly matched this description and opened a discussion. MrOllie, regretfully, is not up for discussion and hides behind the domain of his source, claiming that his source is credible only on the pretence of the domain that it's hosted on, despite the fact that in the talk section multiple people have already pointed out serious flaws in his source. Also, scientific studies contradict his source. He refuses to discuss further and immediately reinstated the old version with the disputed paragraph, violating Wikipedia's policy on contentious material.

I picked up this matter as recently someone described Martin Kulldorff to me as untrustworthy, basing his opinion solely on this single paragraph in his Wikipedia article. It shows how important correct wording is in this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martdj (talk • contribs) 08:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• The OP has been edit warring against two editors. The claim that MrOllie refuses to discuss the issue is obviously baseless. The content in question was restored by a third editor (following its removal by 109.37.138.75). Last but not least, this is a personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 09:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  I failed to notice that the OP has already been reported for edit warring (making this retaliatory report completely useless). M.Bitton (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  I sense a WP:BOOMERANG incoming. — Czello ^(music) 10:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  I refute that MrOllie has participated in the discussion. If you look at his statements on the talk page, literally his only contribution has been that "his source is credible" without providing any proof for that statement and while multiple people using credible sources have shown his statement to be false.

  I'm glad you agree that the paragraph in question is a personal attack on Mr. Kulldorff and was rightfully deleted. Martdj (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  You misunderstand; the personal attack referred to by M.Bitton is yours, in the edit summary. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, though I don't see how they could possibly come to that conclusion given the clear message that I left on their talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• No violation Aoidh (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Quanstzurri998 reported by User:Dusti (Result: Indef blocked for sockpuppetry)

Page: Dadvan Yousuf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Quanstzurri998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
2. 16:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
3. 16:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
4. 16:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
5. 16:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"
6. 16:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "WP:NPOV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Came across while using Huggle. Page protection may be a good method of stopping this as well. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, along with the other accounts editing the page. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Elsharifien reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: EgyptAir Flight 990 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 15:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"
2. 17:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Elsharifien is edit warring, adding uncited material to multiple articles, and is refusing to engage with multiple warnings from multiple users. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Berocca Addict reported by User:FMSky (Result: Declined)

Page: Jason Aldean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "There are three Notable sources saying the same thing - please stop revert waring"
2. 10:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used *with attribution.*"
3. 10:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "adding additional sources to reaffirm point at that Aldean is figure head for culture wars - more can be added if required."
4. 10:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "/* 2023–present: "Try That in a Small Town" */ Being a figure head for culture war seems very pertinent."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC) "/* WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Berocca Addict#WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS and multiple edit summaries on Jason Aldean --FMSky (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

User blatantly ignores WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS despite being told 3 times to not do so and uses it as a source for politics and societally sensitive issues -- FMSky (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "There is consensus that Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, music, entertainment, etc.). Rolling Stone's opinion pieces and reviews, as well as any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution. The publication's capsule reviews deserve less weight than their full-length reviews, as they are subject to a lower standard of fact-checking. See also Rolling Stone (politics and society), 2011–present, Rolling Stone (Culture Council)." - Consequently, I have constantly ensured to include attribution, and added additional notable sources to support the statement. Despite this, FMSky has engaged in excessive revert waring, which is unfortunate. Berocca Addict (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

you are literally reading and citing the wrong section --FMSky (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The article is about a singer - "Rolling Stone has generally reliable coverage on culture matters (i.e., films, *music*, entertainment, etc.)." - This is the relevant section. Further, you are also disregarding two additional sources in your persistent reverting Berocca Addict (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You added "Several publications, including Rolling Stone Magazine and the New Yorker highlighted while Aldean had complained about "cancel culture", the right-wing had adopted the song as an anthem in the current culture wars. " ---- This is a purely political topic --FMSky (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors have violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

because i cited a policy WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS that was blatantly ignored. what else was i supposed to do? --FMSky (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It's an information page, not a policy or guideline (and plainly says so), and that's not an excuse for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I didnt know that. Why does this page even exist then and why is there a wiki link to it? --FMSky (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Because it's guidance to good practice. You may be right, but don't use it as an excuse to edit-war. Also, I see no edits to the talkpage, other than your justified removal of IP talkpage trolling. Edit summaries and comments to a perceived opponent's talkpage are not sufficient discussion. Work it out on the talkpage where others can participate. Acroterion (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay thats good to know, I thought that whenever there's a link like "WP:Whatever" it always links to a guideline. No i started a discussion on the user's talk page, not on the article's one--FMSky (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I should probably add that the disputed content is now in the article anyway but without the questionable source --FMSky (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on FMSky. You've been here for over two years and made over 150,000 contributions until, today, on the edit warring noticeboard, you learned that not all WP:SHORTCUTS lead to policies, and that edit warring is disruptive even if you're right.

In response to "What else was I supposed to do?", Wikipedia offers a dispute resolution policy and an essay called WP:DISCFAIL I personally find very helpful. User talk pages are good for discussing user conduct, article talk pages are better for discussing article content. Next time, please create a discussion on the article's talk page and invite the other user to it. This allows others to participate and a consensus to be formed, perhaps with an RfC.

This noticeboard is unsuitable for having an article content discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Noted, but im actually serious, I though that this was a guideline, especially since other users have previously posted it to me. I've know i've made a crapton of edits but i'm still new to a lot of the guidelines --FMSky (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, WP:RSP is as close to a guideline or policy as an information page could be. It is a documentation of consensus, and the some of the discussions linked from the table are huge and document a strong project-wide consensus (WP:RSP#Daily_Mail for example, with Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC). I think the main point here isn't that RSP isn't a policy. The main point is that even if a policy says the same thing, it's still edit warring to enforce it in this way.

And no worries. It took me almost 10 years to notice that "Undo" in a multi-diff undoes the whole thing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Sutyarashi reported by User:Noorullah21 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Khanate of Kalat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sutyarashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

The content dispute here is regarding whether the Khanate of Kalat remained under the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire. User Sutyarashi does not regard the sources in my dispute well, and even warns me of 3:RR despite them fringing it themselves as you can see in this diff, [13]. They also were not truthful in quoting text from different sources such as in Iranica. You can see on the talk page where I concluded that Sutyarashi was not being truthful about their quotes, such as this Iranica citation they added on the page, claiming that it attained independence after the rebellion, you can see the diff here: [14] However, after looking into the source, it says this:

""Because Aḥmad Shah needed Naṣīr’s support elsewhere, the new treaty was more equal. The khanate no longer paid tribute or maintained a force at Qandahār. Instead, Kalat provided a fighting force only when the Afghans fought outside their kingdom, and then the khan would be provided with money and ammunition. The new treaty was sealed by a pledge of loyalty to Qandahār and the marriage of the khan’s niece to Aḥmad Shah Abdālī’s son. In the settlement with Qandahār the final accommodation was that the shah gave Naṣīr the title of beglarbegī while the khan recognized him as suzerain." [15]

This very clearly stated that they were still in the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire and this user was not being truthful. Noorullah (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, some of the sources added may fail WP:RS on their behalf, such as the one from Taj Mohammad Breseeg, and another one of his sources, under Siddiqi, makes no mention of Kalat still holding independence after the rebellion, it even says that the rebellion was subdued by Ahmad Shah. Other sources like Jonathan Lee and Ashiq elaborate that Kalat was in the suzerainty of the Durrani Empire which you can see on the talk page discussion I linked. [16] Noorullah (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In another diff, this user reverted my edits because it said that Kalat declared independence in 1758. That wasn't what the dispute was about, the dispute was about the rebellion having been settled in an agreement in which Kalat re-entered Afghan suzerainty. I believe this shows initially that the user was not properly taking into consideration the edits I added, you can see the diff here, and claimed the citations I added only supported their argument, despite it very clearly stating that the Khanate of Kalat remained in Durrani suzerainty. (per the quotes I added, and on the talk page references) [17] Noorullah (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This user has also had run ins with edit warring before, such as at [18] in the edit warring subsection.

I'm not sure if this is of further concern, but they were found to be a sockpuppet as seen here [19] per this investigation diff: [20], which if I am not wrong in, should be an indefinite block, and not a 1 week one? You can also see it in their block logs. [21] Noorullah (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Aoidh since they appear to be handling this. See the above for a possible sockpuppet issue. Noorullah (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours . Both editors have violated 3RR. Sutyarashi with the diffs above, and Noorullah21 by undoing (in part) the vassalage wording added by Sutyarashi and then making 3 reverts back-and-forth with [22][23][24]. Per WP:EW The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Aoidh (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also as a note, the SPI from a year-and-a-half ago was resolved at that time the way the blocking administrator felt appropriate; per Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Blocking there is no requirement for an indefinite block for the "main" account. The SPI is not relevant. - Aoidh (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment - I have also unblocked both editors as they have agreed to not make any reverts on that article for at least the next 24 hours, and to discuss on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  Noorullah was edit warring same time on another article Battle of Jalalabad (1710). While Sutyarashi unblock is ok, Noorullah has repeatedly been edit warring and was once blocked before and his appeal for Rollback rights was also denied for exact same reason. 208.184.20.226 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  Note to admins: the 208.184.20.226 IP address above was blocked on 7 July 2023 as the result of a previous ANEW thread filed by the IP (boomerang action), specifically due to block evasion of another IP, 73.236.210.215, which is still blocked to this day (expires in October this year).

  The Battle of Jalalabad (1710) page has been semi-protected for six months due to disruption from multiple IPs, also the talk page of that article shows there is discussion from the editors involved in the editing dispute, including the IPs and Noorullah21, so I do not see a significant problem there.

  And here's a quick shortcut to the request for rollback permissions by Sutyarashi if anyone wants to have a look at it: permalink. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Eliasrou reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: SOMA (architects) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 14:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) to 14:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Selected projects */"
   3. 14:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Selected projects */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) to 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 14:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 14:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
   4. 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC) to 14:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 14:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 14:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 13:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC) to 13:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 13:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167227689 by Eliasrou (talk)"
   3. 13:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167227367 by Viewmont Viking (talk)"
   4. 13:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""
7. 13:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Final Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps adding unsourced content, and edit warring Notrealname1234 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Simplyred90 reported by User:SpaceEconomist192 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Regional power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Simplyred90 (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:

• Italy

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]
5. [29]
6. [30]
7. [31]
8. [32]
9. [33]
10. [34]
11. [35]
12. [36]
13. [37]
14. [38]
15. [39]

• Regional power

1. [40]
2. [41]

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: [42]

Comments:
The user has been edit warring the whole day with plenty of different users in the Italy article. Simplyred90 is also very likely block evading, the account became prolifically active after IP Special:Contributions/87.6.189.15 got blocked (see also Special:Contributions/79.23.193.41). Simplyred90 edits the same pages, removes the same content, makes the same arguments, engages in edit war with the same users, has the same edit style and has poor English skills just like the previously mentioned IPs.

The user is also engaging in edit war in the regional power article, the page needs extended confirmed protection, it has been suffering from edit warring over the same content ad nauseam. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 19:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm noy the same person.You are vandalizing Regional power editing that Spain is in G20. Simplyred90 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to block a right person. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Spain isn't a member of G20. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

He is vandalazing attacking not guilty person and addding false things. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Now i'm trying to report SpacEconomist192 ,the real guilty person. Simplyred90 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Varoon2542 reported by User:SashiRolls (Result: Stale)

Page: Killing of Nahel Merzouk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Varoon2542 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: not sure what is being asked here. 9 July, 18 July, status quo ante: 23 July

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 12:13 23 July
• 12:49 23 July
• 12:55 23 July
• 13:32 23 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
request to undo their 4th revert and to remove personal attacks from talk pages: 23 July,
link to their deletion on 23 July of the previous warning (19 July): [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19 July, 15 July
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [44]

Comments:
Insofar as there are claims of edit-warring on three different pages this month on this user's talk page, as well as a very clear habit of making personal attacks, it seemed to me best to file this report. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I)

User:SashiRolls was previously banned from Wikipedia

He was unbanned on the 15th of January 2023 on the condition of staying away from conflict

To quote User:ScottishFinnishRadish

"Stay away from anything contentious, and stay away from any conflict. I suggest you self-impose 0rr, and unwatchlist and leave any article where you're involved in any conflict. You have vanishingly little rope left, and many that supported the unban also made it clear that this would be the last chance."

To quote User:Starship.paint

"Welcome back. Now, please, no more comments on your opponents. Stay away from anything remotely controversial. I very much hope I made the right decision to vote to unban"

User:Jusdafax, User:Buffs, User:Objective3000 might want to confirm

II)

I have participated on the talk page of the article "The killing of Nahel Merzouk" at the request of User:SashiRolls

Nobody else has. It seems there is Wikipedia:Silence and consensus on the [version] of the introduction.

To have a proper idea of the issue. I highly recommend to read the explanations given for the edits and what has been discussed on the talk page

Him calling me the (Indian) person was deemed as irrelevant and inappropriate by User:Starship.paint and was asked not to repeat the ethnic slur by user:Nil Einne

III)

[[45]] Here is the talk page of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, the other article he is mentioning and where he isn't involved. As you can see, a discussion is already taking place.

IV)

Contrary to User:SashiRolls, I've never been banned from Wikipedia even if some have very quickly sent me warnings when it's not in my habit to do so.

The only time, I was seriously bothered. The editor who did so, Satrar, was ultimately himself/herself banned from Wikipedia ZLEA can confirm

Before any decision is taken, I would just like everyone to have a look at the edits made by User:SashiRolls and me and judge who's warring and who is reverting what can be qualified as activism if not vandalism

I'm tired Varoon2542 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

[46] people from Harigaon in Bhojpur district, the ancestral village of Ramgoolam, however, rejected the claim and said he was a Koiree, a backward caste considered lower on the caste ladder than Kurmis. Their argument: Mohit Ramgoolam, the grandfather of the Mauritian Prime Minister who had migrated from the village was called Mohit Mahto before he went and Mahtos are Koirees.

User Varoon has some WP:CIR issue, as I can guess from Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. The above quote is from a good source (Indian express newspaper is considered WP:RS). Now this source tells us that caste of Seeosagar Ramgoolam was Koeri as claimed by his native villagers. However other source, put by user there says that he was Kurmi. Now as per policies, we need to put both views. But this user is doing WP: SYNTHESIS on the basis of another source which says that on island of Mauritius Koeri and Kurmi both are denoted by term 'vaish'. So he is completely ommiting the reference of Koeri origin and putting only one view by joining both sources himself. I tried to discuss on talk page of article, but he is probably not aware of WP:3RR and WP:AGF, continuosly edit warring on that article[47] without reply. He even neglected the advice of two admins [48] and continuously reverting it, this user should be banned.-Admantine123 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Varoon2542: While SashiRolls's comment on you was unacceptable, it's been removed and AFAIK SashiRolls has never repeated it. In any case, even if they did, the place to deal with that would be at WP:ANI not here. It seems clear that you've broken 3RR so I strongly suggest you self revert. Neither SashiRoll's previous comment on you nor anything else you mentioned is an excuse for a bright line violation. Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I saw that I was pinged in this discussion. You don't need me to confirm that Satrar was blocked (not banned, there is a difference) as a sockpuppet. I know nothing about this dispute, so I'll stay out of this discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Just commenting since I came across this due to the ping, AFAICT, the first diff shows an edit not a revert so it's not a bright line violation. I'm not sure if even the second edit is a revert. Of course the lack of a bright line violation doesn't prevent sanction for edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

This is obviously inaccurate. Admins are encouraged to ignore this erroneous statement. All four reverts are the same reverts that Varoon2542 has been repeatedly making since 9 July (in the case of the lede) and 16 July (in the case of the Ivan Rioufol op-ed being mentioned in the body), restoring his preferred text verbatim. It is to be noted that CNews has been warned by the French audiovisual regulatory body for failing to respect its "obligation to honesty and rigor in the presentation and treatment of the news" as a result of this same Rioufol. (Cf. CNews) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry you're right I am mistaken. I got confused since you linked to a "status quo ante" version as the previous version. But this is not what the editor is reverting to which we would expect in that field but instead is what the editor is reverting against (which is unimportant since it can be seen in the diffs). Nil Einne (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, like I said, I didn't understand what I was being asked there. Basically, the main problem is the use of "French people of Arabo-Islamic background" which Varoon2542 has edit-warred into the lede a shocking number of times now, despite the term not being used in any sources. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Declined While Varoon does have enough of a history to make some sanctions a consideration, here before going across the line they backed off and have not edited the article in two days (Of course, should they return and resume the same behavior, there is ample room for reconsideration). Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Case, please keep a tab on Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, as they probably don't understand the things like WP:SYNTHESIS. They will surely revert to their version again, after coming out of hibernation.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me know on my talk page if and when. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

User:49.206.131.126 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Father of the Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 49.206.131.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167268392 by CX Zoom (talk)"
2. 03:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167169160 by Adakiko (talk)"
3. 03:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168995 by Adakiko (talk)"
4. 03:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168561 by Adakiko (talk) The tile "Father of the nation" is sometimes used for Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in India but Part III, Article 18 of the Indian Constitution prohibits conferring titles other than military and academic distinctions by the State. Wappy2008 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month This keeps happening. Doing it slowly is no less disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

References

User:Sniff snaff reported by User:Trey Maturin (Result: Resolved through discussion)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On Democratic Socialists of America, new user Sniff snaff (talk · contribs) is adding a criticism section sourced to a Medium blog post and to Twitter, saying, in the face of WP:MEDIUM, that nothing on Wikipedia prevents the use of random blog posts on Medium being used to source accusations. I disagree, but my reverts are being reverted and I'm not prepared to edit war. Further eyes would be useful. — Trey Maturin™ 15:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! User User:Trey Maturin continues to avoid the simple question of whether they read the citation in question or not. Wikipedia does not smile upon such shoddy editing. Trey: did you read the citation or not? Sniff snaff (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Schizo15523 reported by User:Vinegarymass911 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Noakhali Zilla School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Schizo15523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168873900 by Vinegarymass911 (talk) broaded"
2. 15:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168866102 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced"
3. 15:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168863456 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced text"
4. 13:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168837302 by Mean as custard (talk) enhanced text with current info"
5. 05:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168691771 by Mean as custard (talk) The article has been significantly enriched with comprehensive details about various clubs. This enhancement brings a deeper understanding of the club activities, objectives, and member benefits. Readers can now delve into a wealth of information, making their experience more informative and enjoyable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Noakhali Zilla School."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A temporary ban would help the user slow down. The user has chosen not to engage and has repeatedly inserted promotional content. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by me after reading the AIV report. Spam/promo-only account. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User:67.149.160.101 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.149.160.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168944852 by Untamed1910 (talk) for the umpttenth time the removal is not the claimed 'unexplained' read previous edit siummaries and stop furthering what you say you are trying to stop."
2. 02:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168943249 by FenrisAureus (talk) no reason given for restoration"
3. 02:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168942543 by FenrisAureus (talk) the section is howling at the moon, feet stomping, they had better than someone else and is completely absurd to list in an article."
4. 01:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168940971 by FenrisAureus (talk) the content is about technology, which is used every day, what next shoe technology of some countries, or diet regimens. Also to the reverter please read the edit summaries."
5. 01:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1168939920 by FenrisAureus (talk) not vandalism, the section is a storm in a tea cup and not something which is anything belonging of being on here.What next we have a whole section on wealthy nations shoe technology of rowing blades, come one this is how sport works"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics."
2. 03:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* August 2023 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Stop removing sourced content */ new section"

Comments: A first edit cannot be a revert and the other two editors including the one who has made this report are complaining of behaviour which they are engaged in. This is ironic as a report and the person making the report is only using what they think the policy says and not what it actually says, they have also clearly demonstrated they are simply counting up to three reverts before they stop doing what they are doing, which is clearly prohibited. Just look at the whole page in question and my talk page. This was also pointed out on this page when another user clearly pointed out multiple people involved inedit warring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Page protected There's too many reverts by too many editors. A discussion has been started on the talk page, I suggest all editors involved use it and come to a consensus regarding the content. Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for forcing some sense on to this issue, and maybe a slap with a wet fish to the person who made this report. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  They were right to bring it here. - Aoidh (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  In that case then irony is truly dead when they are bringing a report about behaviour they are doing themself. I also note they did not report the third person involved...is this kind of single person targeting and complaining about behaviour one is doing oneself actually how things work on Wikpedia? 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  When a report is made here, all involved parties are scrutinized, including the filer. I'm not sure what the issue is here. - Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I also note the discussion on the article talk page was started 2 minutes before this report was filed with one line saying "You should not be removing sourced content regardless." nothing on the content and clealrly no intention to engage on the subject, just clearly to tick some box to make this report requirements met.

  I would just like to point out that I simply saw junk content on a page and got rid of it and the top of the page encouraged me to do so. Instead i had two users who looking in to it further appear to be using automated software or an automated process. Something called "Twinkle" and something called "RedWarn". These things were linked in the history and their edit summaries. These appear to show what an automated system is believing to be 'vandalism' and the replies from the users clearly show no reading of the reasons i gave. They both kept saying 'unexplained' when I left details in the edit summary, and kept on saying it was 'unexplained' when I laid out reasons to these people. I even invited one person to give reasons, which they have not done. This seems to me to be people using an automated system not reading things being done, biting another persons head off, and then stonewalling with the same thing over and over. This surely cannot be how this place is meant to operate, can it? 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Alaska4Me2 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Page protected)

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

User being reported: Alaska4Me2 (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 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Architectural achievements */"
   2. 15:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* New Testament references */ most and majority are not encyclopedic without references to completely support such editorial commentary"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169020138 by Tgeorgescu (talk)returning neutrality and encyclopedia language to this small area of the article"
   2. 15:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* New Testament references */"
3. 15:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169018760 by Tgeorgescu (talk) returning neutrality and encyclopedia language to this small area of the article."
4. 14:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "removed from beginning of article as it should be in the main body; changing to encyclopedic wording, removing guessing and commentary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Herod the Great."
2. 15:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Herod the Great."
3. 15:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Herod the Great."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ WP:RS/AC is a very important part of our WP:RULES"
2. 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ How is that for neutrality?"
3. 15:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ sign"

Comments:

I just want to say that if WP:RS/AC has been abolished, I certainly did not get the memo. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Reporting party made no serious attempt to discuss either at my talk page or the article talk page. Article talk page comments were made about edit warring with snarky commentary in the description of their edits and my edits at the talk page. His snarky commentary has also filtered into their comments here, too. The talk page edits were, I believe, made after this report was filed or with no time passing in order to wait for a discussion to take place before filing this report. I stand by my edits and see no valid reason why the reporting party couldn't have truly tried to discuss. It feels to me as if they are upset I changed something at a page they might be gatekeeping. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your charge that Otherwise, you're just appearing to be the article gatekeeper who is keeping anyone new from changing what's already there, then yes, if someone is removing WP:RS/AC from the article, I am hell-bent for keeping WP:RS/AC inside the article. WP:RS/AC is not subjective in Wikipedic parlance.

Did I discuss badly? Well, the pot is calling the kettle black. You wrote absolutely nothing on the talk page of the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note Tgeorgescu, what do you see the edit you label as nr 4 (=the first of the putative reverts) as a revert of, or to? How is it a revert? I notice you have failed to fill in the "Previous version reverted to" field in your report. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: #4 is a revert, since they have deleted although most Herod biographers do not believe that this event occurred.<ref name=Maier>{{Cite book |last= Maier |first= Paul L. |chapter= Herod and the Infants of Bethlehem |editor1-last= Summers |editor1-first= Ray |editor2-last= Vardaman |editor2-first= Jerry |title= Chronos, Kairos, Christos II: Chronological, Nativity, and Religious Studies in Memory of Ray Summers |publisher=[[Mercer University Press]] |year= 1998 |pages= 170–171 |isbn= 978-0-86554-582-3 |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=mWnYvI5RdLMC&pg=PA169}}</ref>. Revert meaning undoing someone else's edits, and deletion is a way to undo someone else's edits.

  So I don't read "revert=restoring their own past edits", but "revert=undoing someone else's edits".

  Since, obviously, at #4 they were not restoring their own edits, but simply undoing someone else's work. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be saying any deletion is a revert. It is not. If you can't tell me what the previous version reverted to is, that edit is not a revert. I understand that there is a problem, but I think you're at the wrong board. Unless you have a better explanation for me, I'm considering fullprotecting the article and inviting both of you to discuss on talk. I have to agree your use of article talk hasn't been very helpful so far; it's impossible for somebody coming from outside to understand what you're talking about there. User:Alaska4Me2, yours has been worse — you haven't posted on talk at all. Can you give me a reason not to fullprotect, Tgeorgescu? Bishonen | tålk 16:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: I will copy/paste the WP:PAG

  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. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

  Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not very relevant. Take a look instead at the definition of a revert, here: "reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version". Why do you think this board has a "Previous version reverted to" field? I gave you an opportunity to object to fullprotection of the page — I thought you might have some alternative suggestion — wanting to take it to ANI? — but I guess not. The article has been protected. Please both of you discuss on talk and try to reach an agreement. For dispute resolution, since only two editors are involved, WP:3 might be helpful. Bishonen | tålk 16:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC).

User:2600:4040:2826:500:3720:B530:6D45:29FC reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: Page protected for a year)

Page: List of Amazon Freevee original programming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:4040:2826:500:3720:B530:6D45:29FC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

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

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

Comments: The IP user I complained last time has also been endlessly edit warring on other pages besides List of programs broadcast by The CW. I asked for protecting List of Amazon Freevee original programming, but admins only noticed The CW one. That might have been my fault as I didn't only listed it in the long comments and nowhere else. The user has been repeatedly edit-warring on List of Amazon Freevee original programming and List of Peacock original programming. Therefore I request the admins protect both these pages for a long while too as they won't stop. If you view the history of the pages you can see they've been edit warring on one thing or another for months [59] [60]. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user: As I can conclude:

1. Edit warring happened almost one month ago, and
2. The IPs involved in this and the other mentioned article are from the 2600:4040:2800::/40 range, derived from the larger 2600:4000::/24 from the state of Virginia. Go to the contributions of the first range to verify.

ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 14:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit: Because this is a long-term abuse behaviour, the user comes back to make the same edits or type od edits every time after their block expires or the page protection expires, this isn't the first time nor the only page they've edit warred on. This has been going on for a while, even before I got involved and they've blocked thrice for the same behavior as you can see here, here and here.

You can see the user starting edit warring on List of Amazon Freevee original programming the first time since at least May 2023 with this edit: [61], [62], [63]

You can see the user starting edit warring on List of Peacock original programming the first time since at least May 2023 with this edit: [64], [65], [66]

Listing every revert of theirs of course would be too long and impossible. I've listed some reverts here only as an example of their long-term abuse, sorting through them itself was a pain. You can see all their reverts on the history pages of the two articles [67] [68].

As for their IP range itself, it does seem to be 2600:4040:2800::/40. I've requested admins to implement a 6 month anonymous editing ban (not a full block) on it in past to force the user to create an account to discuss their edits, but have been unsuccessful. Linkin Prankster (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Linkin Prankster I noticed this exact comment was initially posted by Roman Reigns Fanboy[69] before being swiftly self-reverted[70] and then being reposted by you[71] moments later (and then you changed the signature[72]). Are you operating multiple accounts? — Czello ^(music) 17:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I do operate multiple accounts, one for films and another for TV to keep the two topics separate and manage them better. Occasionally I cross over to the other account's topic with my one account but not much. But since Wikipedia doesn't allow operating multiple accounts, I didn't admit it until being caught. I never use my account to get involved with supporting edits of the other account in a dispute (though I might edit the same page as them occasionally). Regardless, I apologize. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Having alternate accounts is permitted in some instances, but they must always be clearly labelled as such. Please add a template to both account user pages making this clear - there's some userboxes you can user here. — Czello ^(music) 17:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unaware of that. I will do so, thank you for understanding. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've placed the templates on both of my accounts and specified why I have multiple accounts on both of them. Linkin Prankster (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Page protected for one year. This is really the better option ... there are too many IPs, and the likelihood of strong collateral damage from wide rangeblocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, if there are any more pages they might be edit warring since a long while on, I'll request a long-term page protection on WP:RFPP in future. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: They are also edit-warring on List of Peacock original programming as I showed. I also requested protection for that page, so I hope you can do so. Thank you again. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That page protected for a year as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. Linkin Prankster (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:85.76.164.111 reported by User:TLJ7863 (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Raimo Olavi Toivonen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.76.164.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "I am Raimo Olavi Toivonen and I have copyrights to my home page "https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html""
2. 18:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "I refuse to link to an illegal copy of my ISA site that infringes my copyright"
3. 17:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "You must not publicly infringe Raimo Olavi Toivonen's copyright "https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html""
4. 13:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Has been done as you can see "Skyerise: archive.org has removal procedures, use them undo""
5. 06:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""https://www.pitchsys.fi/copyright_protected_ISA_site/Works.html" really means that "pitchsys.fi" site may not be copied to any archive."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP seems to be connected to this recent sockpuppet investigation. Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to add, just to clarify, the user believes that an archive link citation is a copyright violation. They've had multiple warnings and are now getting rather disruptive and edit warring. TLJ7863 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As I can conclude that the range 85.76.0.0/16 is currently blocked from editing this article. ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 20:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct – the /16 range around this IP address is already partially blocked from editing the article about Raimo Olavi Toivonen. Special:Contributions/85.76.164.111 is now also blocked sitewide for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User:92.184.117.94 reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: 48 hour block)

Page: Sayaka Kanda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 92.184.117.94 (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. 05:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Unconstructive editing (UV 0.1.4)"
2. 05:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sayaka Kanda."
3. 05:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sayaka Kanda."
4. 05:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Sayaka Kanda."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Malformed report, but blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing following a report at WP:AIV. PhilKnight (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Тимофей Васильченков and User:DavidDijkgraaf reported by User:DuncanHill (Result: 7 day partial block each )

Page: Assault on Nijmegen (1702) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Тимофей Васильченков (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and DavidDijkgraaf (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. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

And many many more.

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

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

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

Comments:

I'm not involved, but my watchlist is full of these two. DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the place to give my perspective, if not, delete it. I have made over 2,500 edits and always try to work together with others. This always went in a civil way until now. I have asked this editor countless times to discuss our differences on the talkpage and he refused each time. His was also a problem on the Battle of Malplaquet page were every other user involved tried to work something out. @Eastfarthingan @Robinvp11 also commented on the problems I had with with the user in question. It left me really frustrated, and I probably should have sought some oversight earlier, but I did it before Duncan left a comment. I asked @Cinderella157 to check it out. I understand that edit warring isn't acceptable, but this is what happened. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked both users for 7 days from the article. I strongly advise they use this time to resolve the dispute on the article talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:CrashLandingNew reported by User:Sutyarashi (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]
5. [82]

[83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [85]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [86]

Comments:
Plus, the reported user has already made repeated personal attacks on me by calling me a Vandal without any evidence of it.[87][88]. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no edit warring on my part. The user who has reported me has removed well-defined citations for reason best known to him. The edit summaries for removing those citations are inexplicable. The page under consideration is Hyder Ali and the subject is his ancestry. I have added multiple sources from reliable publishers, mentioning the ancestry of Hyder Ali in great detail but due to some reason User:Sutyarashi removes those citations because he thinks they are not good enough. When i restore them, I am accused of edit warring. The reason for removal his best known to him. CrashLandingNew (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I've left sufficient reasons, both on talk page and as edit summaries, on why these self-publish and colonial sources are not suitable for use. Instead of engaging there, you've already reverted more than half a dozen times on the article. Clearly edit warring, and I dare say, pushing your POV there. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources I've added are colonial or self-published. The ones which fell under those categories were removed. The sources added by me are by reputable publishers, who have been mentioned. I've not call anybody vandal but removing well-defined sources is vandalism and I've only pointed it out. As far as POV is concerned, I can say that for Sutyarashi too. He does seem to have a bias for proving the ancestry of the subject from a certain region. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

No, they are not reliable, I've already mentioned this so on talk page[89]. Also, the main issue here is your edit warring; I had already tried settling dispute at talk page, but in no vain. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

They are reliable. You've made no attempt on talk page. You remove these sources and then leave a summary on talk page, explaini why you removed those citations, i.e. not discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The edit warring is on your part for you removed my sources without any valid reason. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Any evidence of your claims? Sutyarashi (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edits and removal of citations is available in edit history of the page. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You've reverted 6 times within 24 hours; Am I right? Sutyarashi (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

How? Provide the list of reversions. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user: Based on revision history,

1. The edit warring has been long since March 13
2. The reported user was blocked for a week in April
   • Both users are EC now and won't stop.

ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have only a single reversion at article and tried to discuss it on the talk page multiple times. As for edit warring, yes, CrashLandingNew repeatedly accused me of being a sock then and started reversions [90][91][92], without a single evidence of it. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

You've made no attempt on talk page. You remove these sources added by me and then leave a summary on talk page, explaining why you removed those citations. That is not discussion. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Has there been any similar reports from the same page before? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The block was due to another page and an other user was also blocked. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

1. The reporting user wasn't blocked (clean log)
2. Please provide evidence.

ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't mean him. I meant the user who reported me for that abovementioned block in April this year. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Who is he then? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/_(logs) 09:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This guy. We were blocked together on 9th April this year. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

In case you've not noticed by now, the problem here is not that who reported you and not even your block history, but that you've already violated WP:3R rule at the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

plus, the other user was unblocked afterwards by 331dot. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Coz he made a request for unblock and I didn't. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

3R, where? CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

CrashLandingNew and Sutyarashi, I'm happy to see that you are currently discussing this on the article's talk page. CrashLandingNew, I can't see vandalism nor sockpuppetry there; please stop casting aspersions, especially in edit summaries where you can't remove them after having noticed that you're wrong. Vandalism in Wikipedia's terms is intentional damage done to the encyclopedia, and neither of you is intentionally damaging the encyclopedia.

As this is a long-term conflict that would greatly benefit from uninvolved experienced editors, please stop making edits that you know someone else objects to there. You both, CrashLandingNew and Sutyarashi, have disruptively taken over the majority of the edit history. If you continue reverting, or adding material that is currently under discussion without a clear consensus on the talk page, I'll probably place a three-month block from editing the article, or a sitewide one if the personal attacks continue. Create an RfC and/or add a discussion invitation to a central noticeboard like WP:NPOVN to find a consensus; see the dispute resolution policy for further options.

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree I'm ok with this state of affairs, although there was obvious violation of WP:3R by CrashLandingNew. Anyways, should the disputed bits be removed (temporarily) till they are thoroughly discussed on the talk page (by possibly involving other editors)? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sutyarashi, perhaps they should be removed, but not by you. If an experienced uninvolved editor implements WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN, that may be fine; if you do, you're continuing an edit war. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  @ToBeFree Right. Can you do so, by restoring the page to revision[93]Before which all this saga started? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

  No. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User:199.83.163.6 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Isaiah 42 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 199.83.163.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC) to 09:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 06:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Isaiah 42."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

More reverts in the previous days. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Delfield reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Juan Branco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "More neutral"
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC) to 23:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 23:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Relevant comment by a minister of government"
   2. 23:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "See talk page"
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) to 23:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 23:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "See talk page / This is more specific that simply saying that there was "a claim""
   2. 23:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Limited addition, other ones to be discussed"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Nemov: you have a history on POV pushing on this article, siding with sockpuppets promotional edits, you are not an admin and cannot "caution" me. These are small improvements of content deleted without any justification"
   2. 15:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Neutrality"
5. 15:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Deleted relevant information"
6. Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "neutrality"
   2. 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "neutrality"
   3. 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Deleted relevant information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Juan Branco."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It looked like Delfield was going to stop edit-warring a little earlier, but they returned to it after what looks like some very contentious discussion by them and others on the article Talk page. I am WP:INVOLVED. Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I literally implemented what another user and I were discussing in talk page, I am reverted without any explanation and I would be the one edit-warring?!

I added some limited stuff to find a middle ground on what content to be made, this is NOT edit warring.

The two other users are NOT using talk page, except just to say that I should discuss more, but without commenting on content, THEY are the ones edit-warring.

--Delfield (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• This user is not only an edit-warrior. He uses systematically WP:ASPERSIONS against everybody who disagrees with him. See WP:ANI#User: Delfield not assuming good faith and most Delfield's posts on Talk:Juan Branco. So, this is also a case of WP:NOTHERE. D.Lazard (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This was an easy call even though the edits aren't classic 3RR; there are enough reverts of different material notwithstanding ongoing discussion to come under edit warring broadly. And speaking of those discussions, Delfield's attitude—or, I should say, his attitude problem—would have tipped the balance if it were close. In addition to an increasing and worrisome failure to assume good faith, Delfield has become a poster child for tendentious editing.

I have blocked for 24 hours first because this is the first block in their four years of editing, and second because my own assumption of good faith tells me to hope that this will help him see the light and begin to mend his ways. An editor carrying on like this with a longer block history would not get those considerations, I must be clear.

Given his almost singular focus on the Branco article over the past several months, should this recur I would recommend a longer block from the page (and, depending on the circumstances, the talk page as well).

Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:DaDeadzombie reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to: 16:47-17:40, 6 July 2023

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:06-15:09, 1 August 2023
2. 18:34, 2 August 2023
3. 18:23, 3 August 2023
4. 06:05, 6 August 2023
5. 13:38, 6 August 2023
6. 09:42, 7 August 2023
7. 14:32-16:34, 8 August 2023

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 15:17, 6 August 2023 warned by Vanamonde93, the person seeking to make changes to long-standing content, it is your responsibility to obtain consensus for the change, via talk page discussion or an RFC. You may not repeatedly revert to your preferred version once it's been challenged.
• 09:59, 7 August 2023 edit summary by Dāsānudāsa, If you revert again I will involve admins

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Varanasi#Infobox images need change for representation

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 17:06, 8 August 2023

This is a dispute about the images in the infobox. DaDeadzombie wants to replace the existing collage.

• DaDeadzombie's version has captions under each image, instead of a collage with captions under the collage.
• DaDeadzombie's version also has different images.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks, from editing this article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Richie wright1980 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Millennials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Richie wright1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1st set of edits

1. [95]
2. [96]

2nd set of edits

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [102]

Comments:

The case is not straightforward, and the reverts have occurred over the course of more than 24 hours. Richie wright1980's first few edits and subsequent reverts focus on promoting 1980 in the lead of the article, as the "start" date for being a millenial. Whilst none of the contributors to the article factually dispute that, there is a narrow band of years (1980–1983) that are regarded as potential start dates, while 1981–1996 is the commonly utilised range. The lead was worded to take these considerations into account, and the contributors to the article felt that Richie wright1980 was giving too much weight to 1980.

Richie is entitled to challenge this position, so I didn't consider his conduct problematic at this point. After a couple of reverts and some discussion on the talk page, he filed an RFC on the talk page. So far, so consistent with WP:BRD.

Then came the second set of reverts (the first isn't technically a revert because he changed another part of the article but it was advancing the same position) in which he restructured the date range section to essentially frame it as a debate between 1980 and 1981 as the start date. No such debate exists. Many different sources have many different date ranges (and one dominant one), but it's not like there is a raging debate over whether people born in 1980 are millenials or not. The emerging consensus at the RFC is that Richie's edits were giving too much prominence to 1980 in the lead, and this being the case it follows that splitting the date range section into dates that favour 1980 and those that 1981 will do likewise.

The main problem I have with the second lot of edits is that he is persisting in pushing a perspective than is currently the subject of an RFC. It's disruptive, and the RFC needs to be resolved before there are any more edits related to this particular issue. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. I have made it clear within the Talk page that I would make good faith edits to the Date and age range definitions after taking on board the Talk page. You will note that I have raised this again on the Talk page. This is clearly victimisation from a cabal of page gatekeepers - of which you are one of them as a longstanding contributor to that page. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The administrators will notice that I have made a completely good faith edit and am now being victimised for providing evidence to support 1980 as a starting birth year which is supported. My most recent edit based on the Talk Page discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials

Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have also provided 69 reliable sources of information from around the internet to support my most recent edit. Surely these must stand for encyclopedic purposes. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You will also notice that Betty Logan is also being disingenuous here. I have not made further edits to the lede after consulting with the Talk page. However, I have discussed there that I would broaden the Date and age range definitions instead. I have also revised my list of sources and carefully selected 69 sources of reliable information. Betty is conflating the disagreement over the lede section with the contribution that I have made to the Date and age range definitions which is what the RfC was about in the first place. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I made it perfectly clear the second set of reverts pertained to another section of the article. However, I think you are being disingenuous by pretending the edits are unrelated. I am happy to leave that to the presiding admin to determine though. Betty Logan (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The edits are unrelated. You first took issue with the lede section being changed which I conceded to. You are now taking issue with a good faith edit to the Date and age range definitions section. In other words, you are taking issue with every single edit that involves 1980 being proposed as an alternative starting point and then calling that ridiculous. In other words, you are attempting vehemently to protect the staus quo of the page. The only conclusion is that you have a personal issue with 1980 being supported by evidence. The 69 reliable sources which I have provided make it clear that things do not precisely match what the article currently purports and it is worthy of being expanded. You have reverted my edits unnecessarily. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Also Betty you are being extremely unfair here. It was me that raised the RfC in the first place concerning the lede section and I have completely respected the outcome of that. What you are doing is scrutinising my every edit to ensure that I do not make changes to any other section. This is your attempt to protect the status quo of the page. Convince me otherwise that you will respect the 69 reliable sources provided to support 1980 and convince me otherwise that they are worthy of inclusion. It concerns me that you would rather pretend they did not exist which is why I have also called into question your reverts which are unacceptable in my opinion. Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

When you accuse me of being a "gatekeeper" do you realize I was involved in an earlier RFC at Talk:Millennials/Archive_14#RfC_about_the_date_range_in_the_lead_section when the "cabal" of editors I supposedly belong proposed to limit the date range in the lead just to 1981–1996? I argued against that on the basis that it was not neutral. However, we are not here to discuss article content, but rather your conduct at the article. There is an ongoing RFC to discuss the issue, and yet you persisted with edit-warring your perspective into the article despite the fact there was no consensus for it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The RfC is concerned with the lede of the article. You will note I have not edited on that basis. That is not to be confused with the contribution that I have made to the Date and age range definitions section. You are perfectly aware that this is a separate discussion. Richie wright1980 (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted to calm the situation down at Millennials. I maintain that there is a very strong case to improve the article and to split 'Date and age range definitions' section to explain that there are different starting birth years for millenials - most notably 1980 and 1981. I have added the unbalanced template to the top of the 'Date and age range definitions' section and the controversial issues template to the top of the article talk page. There is a real danger that there are a handful of long term contributors to the page who are preventing the article from being explanded upon and are using edit wars to prevent content from being expanded. I draw administrator attention to this. Please see: Diffs of my recent contributions:

1. [103]
2. [104]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aside from repeatedly restoring his preferred version or elements thereof, a particularly significant and radical move while discussion was undergoing, Richie demonstrates tendentious qualities during this whole contretemps, particularly a severe inability to drop the stick, an inability so severe that I wonder if he even realizes there's a pulverized horse carcass on the ground. Exhibit A for me as to why this block, the first one Richie has received, is necessary is this thread, where more than one editor tells him to stop and his response is basically my way or the highway ... well, Ritchie, that highway goes both ways and I hope you have a full tank. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User:62.83.159.64 reported by User:Impru20 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: 2023 Spanish general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.83.159.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 17:57, 8 August 2023‎ (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC) "That all depends on your sources. Read the arguments on both sides. The sources you must have consulted may be based on Pro Spanish sources. He is even an EMP for Spain. They had no real arguments to stop him from taking up office."
2. 22:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC) "And I am Catalan and I read many more references daily on the news in Spanish and Catalan. I receive this kind of influx of information every day. Read my arguments and stop behaving like a senseless bot. I am new to this and I down know how to post references. Stop changing my edit."
3. 22:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) "Try if just for a bit to verify the different arguments I have given. Just to ask for a source when I am no programmer like some bookish assesser. Just try to look for Charles puigdemont political exile in English. If he is a fugitive why is he in the European Parliament? Think twice. Stop acting like BOTS. Contrast yourselves the information. Not my fault you cannot read my languages."
4. 23:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC) "I am trying to post links to back my arguments but it doesn't allow me, I don't know how to post them. Look in the BBC, Le Monde or Der Spiegel for references calling him an exile"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
2. 22:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 22:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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

1. 23:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments:
User has basically engaged in a mindless POV-pushing, edit warring behaviour on the article against multiple editors, deliberately ignoring calls for bringing the issue to the talk page and stop adding unreferenced content; they have themselves acknowledged to be unable to provide sources backing up their claims, but whenever they are reverted they keep engaging in the same behaviour insulting those who revert them. 3RR was violated at 23:12, despite multiple warnings in advance by myself and another editor. Impru20^talk 21:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. However, @Impru20: the diff that you placed at "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is not an attempt to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page, that diff should have been placed at "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning". None of the editors involved have made any attempt to use the article's talk page. Aoidh (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

User:ByzantineIsNotRoman reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Eighth Crusade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "I left a couple replies on the talk page addressing this, many others already pointed out why the “inconclusive” result was justified. Please lock this page to prevent further vandalism and edit warring"
2. 16:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC) "I would stop edit warring unless you want to get blocked from editing, leave a message on my talk page if you want instead"
3. 09:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit-warring within 24 hours of release from block for edit-warring. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week. Edit-warring after expiration of this block should probably result in an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Bluthmark reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Declined for now)

Page: Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bluthmark (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 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC) to 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC) ""
2. 20:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
3. 20:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC) to 19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 19:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 15:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) to 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
   1. 15:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""
   4. 15:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order."
2. 20:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Star Wars Jedi: Survivor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is insisting on adding several writers, WP:VG/MOS states to list one main writer. Talking hasn't worked, a final warning hasn't worked. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Declined I would have blocked, but the AN/I thread that this led to, particularly these comments by Jayron32, have put this in a different light and maybe this is something we should wait on. Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case (talk · contribs), they're still doing the same thing. Why wait out an ANI, when this is clearly edit warring? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Because Jayron has a point, a point which one edit to your page has a direct bearing on, and this was noted by another editor who got involved. Yes, I'm aware, the AN/I has also noted other more questionable edits by Bluthman (edits that might be too old at this point to address with a block, but it has also been noted that you could just as easily be blocked as well, and other editors on the thread have agreed with Jayron.

I did not say we had to wait out the AN/I. I suggested it. If, before it concludes (if it concludes), Bluthman continues editing in the same vein, I would be more inclined to block as now it cannot be assumed that they don't know any better. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Both parties are edit warring here: [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] from @Soetermans. That's a violation of WP:3RR, isn't it? (And to say 'talking hasn't worked' seems a bit off when there is still nothing on the article talk page—and they even started a discussion with you on your user page.) Shells-shells (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Robcolbie reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Irn-Bru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robcolbie (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. [110]
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115], [116]

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

Comments:
User has been attempting to insert incorrect information to the article for some time. As per discussions at their talk page, they do not have consensus to do so. Barry Wom (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Correct information. Don't need consensus when it's clearly there for all to see Robcolbie (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Kiwi Jaden reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: Declined)

Page: Strictly Come Dancing (series 21) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Couples */"
2. 10:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1169636479 by Chelsea Lee Art (talk) don't know who the heck you are but I've been doing this for years and we go by their Wikipedia articles. It describes her as a presenter too. Stop reaching."
3. 09:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Couples */She’s not a pundit."
4. 09:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Couples */She’s called a television presenter on her page. She’s most known besides being a former British No 1 tennis player as a TV presenter. She’s not a pundit."
5. 08:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "/* Couples */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Strictly Come Dancing (series 21)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: You will find that the other user Chelsea Lee Art has been involved in several petty disputes and has been trying to take over the thread of Strictly Come Dancing series 21. Annabel Croft is described as a former professional tennis player & television presenter on her Wikipedia page and the BBC article does too (before finally describing her as a pundit). The other user is doing this to start an edit war, whereas I am following proper procedure. So the fact you've put me here and not the other user is deeply upsetting. Kiwi Jaden.

• I've blocked Chelsea Lee Art as a sock. I've reverted their last edits on the article, not on the merits, but per WP:BANREVERT.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• KiwiJaden reverted after the 3RR warning, whereas CLA did not; that is why you are here. They were edit warring as well, but they cannot be reported here (as I understand it) unless they continue after their warning. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Note: CLA did indeed revert after the 3RR warning, but Bbb23 had already dispensed with them before I saw CLA's latest reversion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Declined: Reverting contributions from blocked/banned users such as ZestyLemonz is exempt from the edit warring policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Therealwearegetting reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Focus on the Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC) "I'm going to keep changing it because you don't stop hate with more hate. Make it neutral if you don't like how I'm handling it. Thanks in advance"
2. 09:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC) "Syntax"
3. 02:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) "Removed the Karen like tone"
4. 00:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Focus on the Family."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Khateli20 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Pblocked indef)

Page: Jak Roberto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khateli20 (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. [118]
2. [119]
3. [120]
4. [121]
5. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [124]

Comments:
This has been a slow motion edit-war going on for a couple of weeks over a fan nickname that I don't think has strong enough sourcing to include in the lead in Wikipedia's voice. I've left warnings, notes, pointers to WP:BRD, cceated talk page discussion without success. The editor appears to be a WP:SPA around this article so perhaps a block from the article will finally get them to actually discuss. Ravensfire (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Indef partially blocked. Courcelles (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Darker Dreams reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: Witchcraft (traditional) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darker Dreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Aug 2: [125]

Diffs of edit-warring and tendentious editing:

1. Aug 3: diff of edit-warring
2. Aug 3: and again
3. Aug 11: return to edit-warring
4. Aug 11: and again

This is tendentious editing. The user edit-wars to the edge of 3RR, is reverted by multiple editors (I have been one), then takes a break for a day or more, then resumes the disruption.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Question on article talk
• User talk:
  • Edit warring warning
  • Attempt to discuss content
  • More on edit-warring
  • Warning about personal attacks and incivility (called normal editing by editors in good standing, "vandalism"[126][127])
  • Warnings about resumption of edit-warring today:[128],[129]

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

Comments:
There is an ongoing cluster of issues around the Witchcraft articles. It started with a page move discussion, that is now at dispute resolution and two AfDs.

While this has been going on, Darker Dreams copied and pasted the Witchcraft article and created a POV fork as Witchcraft (traditional), using definitions they do not have consensus for. Now, Darker Dreams is continuing the POV push through WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and slow revert-warring. Several editors, including myself, have explained on talk why it's not appropriate to use Indigenous links for "witchcraft", and Darker Dreams agreed that it is uncontested that Indigenous cultures use "witch" for those who do evil to their own. Yet Darker Dreams has now gone back to revert-warring to insert "traditional knowledge/Indigenous knowledge" as a meaning for witchcraft and to remove sourced content that gives a more consensus definition. While the main content dispute is a topic for the mediation, the tendentious editing and creation of POV forks is disruptive. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from the article, not least because I at least don't want to be dealing with this while I'm at Wikimania next week. But of course other admins will be available ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)