Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS oder Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Skyerise reported by User:Asarlaí (Result: Full protection for three days)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Witchcraft#Ridiculous!
• Talk:Witchcraft#Proposal
• Talk:Witchcraft#Requested_move_19_July_2023
• Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias

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

Comments:
I don't like having to do this, but Skyerise keeps making sweeping changes against consensus, while discussion is ongoing. They removed the longstanding section about Wicca three times. Having failed to keep it removed, they began simply deleting the statement that malevolent magic is "the most common and widespread meaning" of "witchcraft", along with the five high-quality academic sources supporting it (see here). I undid that, they removed the sentence again, I restored it, then they removed it again. Also, Skyerise and Randy Kryn seem to be planning to tag-team on this article so they can keep pushing their POV without breaking 3RR. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I did do some self-reverts that don't seem to have been included. Voluntarily taking 48 hours away from this particular article and its redirects. Hope that is sufficient remorse. Thanks Asarlaí for bringing my overage to my attention. Skyerise (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Another relevant link is when @Skyerise removed a comment asking them to stop. Explanation for that? El Wikipedian (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

How is that relevant? It's well established that users may remove warnings from their talk page. It's my regular practice to do so, and I always comment "read" or "ackknowledged" when I do so. Skyerise (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure...you are allowed to...but its a tad odd to do in the middle of discussion here...it just feels a bit shady...like your trying to hide something. You did not comment read or ackknowledged (and id be surprised if you always commented with a typo). @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest you take a closer look at the chronology. I removed that comment an hour before this complaint was opened. Also, I don't believe I made any reverts after that warning either. Skyerise (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Having read the missive, and responded to it calmly in an edit summary (indicating that it had been read, and offering an explanation), the editor was perfectly within their rights to remove the message from their own user talk page. Also see WP:GOODFAITH. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment by involved admin: Look at her block log. Skyerise has been blocked for this behaviour many times before. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd like to say that since those blocks that I've realized that a collegial atmosphere is way superior to a battleground attitude. I admit that I lost count, and if my reverts hadn't already been reverted, I would do that now. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Appeal for leniency from involved editor: Skyerise is a thoughtful, sensible, knowledgeable, resourceful, studious, intelligent, approachable, and pleasant editor who has made a great many useful contributions across so many articles. I think perhaps her errant behaviour might be a measure of her frustration in the face of concerted, and at times adversarial, opposition. She has initiated and engaged in discussions on the article talk page.

Ask yourself which is the more collegial, if errant:

• "remove the primary example of systemic bias; this is also not cited correctly - it is not sufficient to provide five citation to prove "most widespread now", it would require say a linguistic survey, etc" (Skyerise).
• Or "what the hell is this?" (Asarlaí).
• Or "establish that most reliable academic sources don't consider malevolence part of the definition of witchcraft, but rather a stereotype projected by others" (Skyerise).
• Or "unexplained removal of detail supported by numerous academic sources" (Asarlaí).
• Or "NOT removed, rather QUALIFIED" (Skyerise).
• Or "Skyerise, respect the consensus we've reached through this process." (CorbieVreccan).

For essential context, see:

• Talk:Witchcraft#Systemic_bias

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Colapsing, sockpuppet making trouble. Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I disagree, there seems to be a repeated pattern of edit warring here @Esowteric El Wikipedian (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Do review the blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." How would a block be preventative if I have admitted my fault and voluntarily stopped editing the article for 48 hours? Are there complaints of me edit-warring on any other articles at this time? I am certainly open to suggestions that 48 hours is not enough, but there is currently no disruption being caused that needs to be prevented. Are you suggesting that blocks are punitive rather than preventative as policy dictates. Skyerise (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC) To prevent you from going back and doing it again maybe @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I'd think you'd have to establish that that was likely. I do actually do my best not to edit war. Sometimes I mess up. In the past, when I've messed up I've argued about it, so I got blocked. That didn't work very well so I am happy to freely admit that I messed up and even voluntarily discipline myself. I really think you'd have to show that my admission or self-discipline are insincere and that I have some grand plan to engage in intentional edit-warring the moment my self-imposed discipline expires. Do you have evidence that that is the case? Skyerise (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I believe that as sincere as they might be you continue to edit war @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) So you have no evidence to present to support that belief, then. Skyerise (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I have a pattern of edit warring and your block log@Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) For a newbie, you sure seem to have done your homework. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Ive been reading on wikipedia for years @Esowteric El Wikipedian (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) And I've had several harassing stalkers over the years, mostly IP editors, but sometimes they make accounts to hide their location, since their locations are known. Skyerise (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Are you suggesting hat im stalking you!? Im not btw. I just like to read wikipedia. relax. @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC) I didn't make any such suggestion, but since you bring it up, one of your early edits was to edit the article Sky-Watcher. Here's the diff. Skyerise (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Sorry, that was my fault. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Umm...how is that related. Also I found that from the user homepage @Skyerise El Wikipedian (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC) Oh, I admit it is probably not related, but my most aggressive stalker would use "Sky" or "Skye" in their user names and also edit related articles so I would know it was them. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Skyerise (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the actual reports? All but two of my blocks are from 2015 or before. There are only two recent ones, and I admit I was heated at the time and argued and deserved to be blocked. But in none of the cases did I actually go back and edit war on the same article immediately after the block expired, so why would I do so when I am voluntarily refraining. Block logs actually tell one very little, and the actual context is hard to extricate. It's all situational. Skyerise (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Esowteric, edit-warring with what reads to you like a "polite" or "collegial" edit summary is still edit-warring. When people disrupt with a smiling face it can actually be more disturbing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I followed a notice on Wikipedia_talk:Systemic_bias[7] to find what is apparently a perennial concern (raised with various levels of quality) being dismissed[8] along with attempts to add some semblance of balance to a main space topic.[9] Since I have engaged on the topic it appears @User:Asarlaí and @User:CorbieVreccan have sought to wp:tag team the subject and target me.[10] I feel they have sought to wp:own the page[11][12][13] and broadly influence Wikipedia to indicate their particular point of view[14] while accusing others of the same, misusing policy,[15] and doing so with cover of adminship[16]. It seems like I for one am having to make almost every edit twice because I'm essentially guaranteed to be reverted regardless of how basic the edit is,[17] or how well sourced.[18][19].

Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me at this point to see one of these two make a formal accusation against another editor in this dispute. The fact it's @User:Skyerise, who I felt had largely tried to be relatively measured on the issue, is surprising. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

DD, all of this is irrelevant to Skyerise's 3RR violation. You have been very disruptive on these articles, and people have talked about it and warned you. That's what we do here. Do you understand that this is the edit-warring board? Skyerise violated the edit-warring/3RR policy, and has admitted it. Are you saying you think that it's fine to repeatedly violate policy in your quest to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that you and Asarlai have repeatedly edit warred and more in your attempt wp:own the article and to shut down collaborative processes to make improvements. While User:Skyerise's violations may be problematic, I was under the impression that admins are supposed to be at a higher standard of conduct - not flout policy more egregiously. Darker Dreams (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: Skyerise is back to hitting undo on Witchcraft. I made a minor tweak to a sentence to make it less unwieldy, and she hit undo, with a bizarre and misleading edit summary: ([Undid revision 1166785522 by CorbieVreccan (talk) let's not interrupt the collaborative process which is how we arrive at a new consensus; improve, don't revert). I don't think she's able to stop. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Note : CorbieVreccan neglects to mention that I reverted a revert that undid all of this morning's collaboration by other editors or that they themselves executed this revert. Also, my voluntary 48 hour withdrawal is over. Skyerise (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted no one. I tweaked a sentence to remove excess verbiage and a word that I don't see in the sourcing. I did not change any meanings. You are the one who hit undo. This is ridiculous. You clearly can't be trusted to voluntarily restrain yourself. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no intention of reverting again for another 24 hours. That's not an edit war. Just because your revert was a partial revert doesn't make it not a revert. Nor does it mean you are edit-warring. (or does it?) Skyerise (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

In the lede, one contentious sentence now has seven citations back-to-back. Skyerise quite rightly tagged that as "excessive citations" and was promptly reverted by CorbieVreccan with the edit summary, "The lede has a lot of cites because they were demanded to prove the most common definition. Flagging as over-cited is a common POV push move, because the next move would be to wait and then say it's not sufficiently sourced. All anyone has to do is wade through talk and they will see why every one of the cites is there. The flag was disruptive and I have removed it."

This is not collegial, it is an example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

I have pointed out that to avoid an "excessive citations" tag, they can be grouped together: ref *cite1 *cite2 ... /ref, with the bullet points each on a new line. Or pruned. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That makes his second revert. Any removal is always a revert of the editor who added the tag or material, even if combined with other edits. Skyerise (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup: Skyerise merely reverted after a whole heap of people changed and reverted and re-changed that part of the lede, and she used the edit summary "let's not interrupt the collaborative process which is how we arrive at a new consensus; improve, don't revert". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Note about sockpuppet: User:El_Wikipedian. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I collapsed that entire tangent. I’ll let another admin answer this ANEW since I’m doing CU stuff here. Courcelles (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. In full for three days. Enough. I have been keeping an eye on this for the last couple of days, and my initial hopes that it would blow over have sadly proven unfounded. It seems the best solution is to keep everyone's hot little fingers off the article for a few days and continue to attempt to work it out on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Protection expires soon. The request at DRN has been extraordinarily, barely, accepted. The degree and scope and multifariousness of contention is great, there are more editors added to the DRN than usual (22), interest from EC editors is non-standardly high. The risk that it could be failed down the line is high. But it could work. Since not everyone is on the same page about the scope of the dispute resolution process, if there are going to be edits of the "DRN is about X and this is about something else type", the DRN process is probably doomed. So please extend for 7-14 days to help things there. Just a thought.—Alalch E. 20:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Three days was just to give people space and time to get something like this together. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: you might want to protect Wicca as well; same dispute recently echoed there by one of the editors in DR: [20] Skyerise (talk) 22:58, 27 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): [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19 July, 15 July
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

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)

[[23]] 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)

[24] 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[25] without reply. He even neglected the advice of two admins [26] 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: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: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

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

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, [35]. 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: [36] 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." [37]

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. [38] 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) [39] Noorullah (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This user has also had run ins with edit warring before, such as at [40] 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 [41] per this investigation diff: [42], 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. [43] 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 [44][45][46]. 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)

  Kommentar - 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: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: [47]

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: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

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: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: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:Ghazaalch reported by User:ParadaJulio (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ghazaalch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Largest and most active political opposition group?(WP:RFCBEFORE)

Review of recent modifications in the lead

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [55]

Comments:
The article is under WP:1RR. Ghazaalch's changes have issues that are being called into question on article talk page (Ghazaalch's changes are not the "longstanding version" because they were made just over a month ago). Requests to resolve disputes on the talk page are almost entirely disregarded. ParadaJulio (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I notice that Ghazaalch was not warned of and invited to promptly correct the perceived error on their talk page prior to this being filed, which is the normal courtesy, so Ghazaalch has not been alerted (also offline since). I assume Ghazaalch was not counting the earlier edit noted here, a restoration of material, as a revert (rightly or wrongly) - it certainly was not a clean revert to the 9 June diff mentioned. Outside of this, the paper trail of what was changed is quite hard to follow. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and will log under CTOPS Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

While this may be a 1RR violation, I find it frustrating that ParadaJulio and Alex-h who have been routinely applying mass reverts without adequate explanation to this article go unchecked. MarioGom (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@MarioGom and Iskandar323: I started a new thread on article talk page where you can explain which revert you think has not been given adequate explanation. ParadaJulio (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can say the quiet part loud now: this report was filed in bad faith by a blocked user, who was violating previous sanctions in order to be able to post this report in the first place. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stefka Bulgaria. MarioGom (talk) 01:11, 27 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: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:

• Italien

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]
5. [60]
6. [61]
7. [62]
8. [63]
9. [64]
10. [65]
11. [66]
12. [67]
13. [68]
14. [69]
15. [70]

• Regional power

1. [71]
2. [72]

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: [73]

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: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.<ref>"Part III, Article 18 of Indian Constitution" (PDF)."
5. 03:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC) "Undid revision 1167168300 by Adakiko (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Aoidh (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Phil81194 reported by User:Solaire the knight (Result: Both editors warned)

Page: Homura Akemi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Phil81194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]

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

Comments:
I reverted the Phil81194 edit as they basically replaced the definition of "seeing in one of the nightmares" with the tautological "seeing her as a dream in one of the nightmares" and also, in my opinion, overused the word "magical girl" where not it is necessary, removing from the description of the character that at one of the moments they took on a demonic form. The first time, to my shame, I reverted one of the user's several edits without comment because it didn't seem important to me. But since they similarly reverted their edit, I was forced to explain the reasons for my reversal and also opened a topic on the talk page, where I expressed my position. In response, the user went directly to my talk page, where he stated that he believed his edits were correct, so he did not consider them an edit war and returned them to the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHomura_Akemi&diff=1167395993&oldid=1167392567 The same was actually left on the page's talk page. As a source, they refer to the film itself, the reason for which is not clear to me, since the dispute is not about the events of the film, but only about wording. Although given that at the end of the film the character actually becomes a devil who confronts the protagonist who has become a demiurge, I highly doubt the idea that the character's devilish form is supposedly not divine. I warned the user that if I continued, I would be forced to write a request to the administrators, but he ignored this and simply reverted my edit again. In this regard, I stopped any edits in the article and wrote here. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone. This user is changing a good wording in an article just for the sake of changing it, the information about the character is good, correct and it gives the article a better wording. It was not an edit war, this user jumps to the "the edit warring noticeboard" every time without any notable reason, and you can check this out on archives of the user. Thanks. Phil81194 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you have any other arguments besides "my edits were good, so it wasn't an edit war" ? You've actually repeated this in three different threads already, but I still haven't seen an answer to my opinion that "I saw it as a dream in one of my nightmares" didn't sound very good, and that the character's devilish form is clearly at least different from character's standard magical form. I also don't like how you try to base your argument on direct accusations against me, but let the admins judge for themselves. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The first episode of the anime series is titled, "As If I Met Her in My Dream..." and that's the correct information about the character that should be written in the article, and for the film I suggest you to understand the story before changing any information, her devil form is not a divinity. Phil81194 (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to copy the same message in different threads. You force me to make the same answers and thereby duplicate topics. Madoka couldn't see Homura "like a dream", only "in a dream". Even the text you quoted contains just such a form. Accordingly, Homura was not one of the dreams and the phrase "I saw her as a dream in one of my nightmares" sounds tautological. Why not replace it with" I saw her in one of my dreams/nightmares"? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against a better wording from you, but with only official informations about the character. Phil81194 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You are literally quoting the text where Madoka implies that she saw Homura IN A DREAM, not AS A DREAM. In addition, any official sources position the devilish form as separate from the magical girl, besides opposing it to the demiurge Madoka in her god version (even the Madoka wiki share this, but I don't use it as a fan resource). What sources do you refer to other than the general "watch the movie"? Maybe you can quote some lines from the movie that would confirm your words? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

UPD. Since the question is "smoothly" moving towards maximum emphasis on terminology, I want to note that I will not mind if any of the administrators resolve this issue from a linguistic point of view and without considering the request for an edit war, since I think we both broke it. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The devil form of the character is not a magical form, yes, that's true, but she's not a divinity. It was never mentioned in the film in its Japanese version and you can check it out by your self. We are talking about the story of a character and these kind of things often doesn't have official sources. The source is the story and the film it self. Listen, you make too much sound here for nothing, just for simple wording, like I sais before. If you want to add a better wording about the "dream" then just go on, but for the devil form I'm 100% sure about the information, she's not a divinity. This is my last message here, I don't have time to waste.

• Both editors are warned that if you revert again, you risk being blocked without notice. Also, if you wish to resolve your dispute, do so somewhere else other than here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the solution. In this case, which forum do you recommend moving the discussion to? I'm new to the English section, so I don't know which pages to discuss such questions if the discussion page didn't help much? But anyway, I tried to continue the dialogue on the talk page and offered a compromise, taking into account your outcome. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You should continue on the article Talk page. If that doesn't resolve the conflict - and it's a bit premature to give up on the Talk page as a forum - you'll have to look at other methods of dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! I don't dare to test your patience anymore, you really helped channel this into a more peaceful direction. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

User:166.199.172.40 reported by User:Notrealname1234 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Green Jellÿ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 166.199.172.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Band members */Added content that vindictive wiki editors keep sabotaging."
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC) to 11:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
   1. 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Band members */Fixed the accurate content that was deleted by wiki nerds"
   2. 11:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC) "/* Band members */Added more accurate content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Page protected by Ad Orientem for 2 weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)