Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive496

User:Artemiser32 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Stale)

Page: Soma (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Artemiser32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1294575075 by Soetermans (talk) Again, yes, very much a video game genre. Please stop needlessly reverting edits."
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC) to 11:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 11:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Conceded MOS:TITLES reversion. Psychological horror designation stands."
   2. 11:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Grammar and spelling correction."
3. 11:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1294375455 by Soetermans (talk) Psychological horror is indeed a genre that may or may not encompass survival horror. (cf. Silent Hill). As per MOS:TM and MOS:TITLES, trademarked game titles should retain their stylisation if it's not overly distracting. SOMA is both a trademarked title and a published video game, it is correctly capitalized."
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC) to 10:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 10:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1294373526 by Soetermans (talk) Restoring previous version; revert was incorrect. "Soma" is marketed and listed as SOMA."
   2. 10:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 10:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Fixed short description after revert."
5. Consecutive edits made from 01:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC) to 10:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 01:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Updated short description"
   2. 01:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "/* top */SOMA is largely considered to be a psychological horror game (cf. Silent Hill 2) with survival horror elements. No resource management etc. likened to survival horror other than the basics of hiding & puzzle solving. The game is exploratory."
   3. 01:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Updated short description"
   4. 10:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Changed grammatical errors."
   5. 10:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   6. 10:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   7. 10:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Artemiser32 moved page Soma (video game) to SOMA (video game) over redirect: Misspelled: SOMA is marketed and stylised as "SOMA", not "Soma". "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Soma (video game)."
2. 11:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ re"
3. 11:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Soma (video game)."
4. 11:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ re"
5. 11:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ re"
6. 14:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Soma (video game)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC) "Soetermans moved page Talk:SOMA (video game) to Talk:Soma (video game) over redirect: WP:MOSCAPS"

Comments:

User first insisted on making incorrect all-caps style (WP:MOSCAPS) and added incorrect video game genres (video game genres are based upon gameplay, not narrative). Messages and warnings and the option to start a talk page discussion, request input from WT:VG or make a request for comment have been ignored. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd like make a notice that this user incorrectly has a headlock on the general consensus of Psychological Horror as a genre. The existence of this sub-genre (along with Survival Horror) is not disputed, and it is ignorant to disregard it as such.

Please take this into consideration before any further action. Thank you. Artemiser32 (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

What a strange reply. I should inform myself before taking action? You have been told to stop edit warring, yet continued all the same. Wikipedia is no place for edit warring, or WP:GENREWARRIORs for that matter. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. You have been continuously reverting non-vandalising and constructive changes to a video game page that is generally considered to be in the sub-genres of Psychological Horror and Survival Horror. I recommend experience with games including Silent Hill, SOMA, Cry of Fear, F.E.A.R, etc. before making more authoritative comments on the existence of this genre.

I'd also like to point out that I have conceded the points regarding MOSCAPS, and so it is immature and unnecessary to use it as ammunition in an administrative dispute.

Thank you. Artemiser32 (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

You did. After your initial edits, you reverted four times, whether or not you conceded the unnecessary all-caps style, you pushed your preferred version. You did not start a discussion on the talk page. You did not ask for advice. You did not provide any reliable sources. You reverted again and again. You make general claims without any evidence. A video game genre is based upon gameplay and not narrative. And now you suggest I should have some experience with games? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your reversions, you are yourself participating in this conflict. I do not have to give you reliable sources on my own, they have already been provided for you on the (subsection) Wikipedia page on Psychological Horror games as a genre.

According to your authoritative, vindicative consensus on the supposed existence of this genre, I suppose the existence of this category should be entirely disputed and erased as well?

Sincerely, I fail to see any evidence on your part. Please tell me where your authority stems from. Artemiser32 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

EDIT: Wrong hyperlink, should refer to this page instead. Artemiser32 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

You are edit warring and refuse to engage in a constructive discussion and make odd comments that border uncivility. This looks like a WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT or perhaps a WP:COMPETENCE issue at this point. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how you are engaging in constructive discussion. I've given you my points. I do not see them addressed. Artemiser32 (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Artemiser32, can you be trusted not to continue without a block technically enforcing this? You said above you are not edit warring; this is correct as of the time of writing but you did edit war and if it continued, I'd block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I have only stopped with the contention because my changes were given a fair compromise by another user and not unnecessarily undone by the user SOETERMANS. As of right now, my changes remain on the Gameplay body of the page with altered wording by user Go D. Usopp.

If my changes, which are not vandalism, nor unconstructive as this vindicative individual claims, are undone without any note of anything to support the reversion; yes, I will enter a point of contention with this troubled user. I don't believe this is cause to be blocked. Artemiser32 (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The following edits should not have happened and having to expect further similar edits would create a need for a block:

• Special:Diff/1294378066 (reverting a revert, using an edit summary for a discussion that should happen on the article's talk page)
• Special:Diff/1294378413 (a misuse of the rollback permission, cf. WP:ROLLBACKUSE)
• Special:Diff/1294575964 (reverting a revert instead of discussing)

I'd like to close this report without action but I'd need both Soetermans and Artemiser32 to understand the points in the list above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Why are you unnecessarily writing my username in ALL-CAPS, WP:SHOUTy style? Is this a dig became of the SOMA/Soma thing? My username is Soetermans, not SOETERMANS. My signature is in small caps, like SOETERMANS. Please do not do that.

Why are you describing me as "a troubled user" and "vindictive"? ToBeFree, please, that is a personal attack and would be reason for another stern warning if not a temporary block. Could you perhaps ask Artemiser32 to understand this unacceptable behavior, before closing the report?

I at no point described your edits as vandalism. They were unconstructive, because again, gameplay genres are based upon gameplay and not narrative. Like Go D. Usopp pointed out, similarly to a narrative genre like science fiction, psychological horror doesn't say anything about gameplay. You were disruptive because of edit warring.

Apologies for hitting the wrong button. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Soetermans, converting smallcaps to all-caps is a pretty forgivable mistake. Artemiser32 hasn't mentioned your name in a different way anywhere on this page, so it also doesn't seem to be much situation-dependent. If anything, you could take it as a sign that they manually typed your name instead of copying it, and perhaps even intentionally made an effort to match your preferred spelling.

I did notice "vindicative individual" and "troubled user", interpret the latter as a language/translation issue mixing up active and passive voice and wouldn't have addressed the former as it probably doesn't help at this point.

I'll need Artemiser32 to understand and acknowledge that what they did was edit warring and that having to expect further similar contributions is a common reason for a preventative block, contrary to incivility punishment.

With rollback, the issue is mostly independent of the button used; Twinkle has a big red "VANDAL" button with the same effect that wouldn't have been better either. The issue is a combination of reverting a revert instead of dicsussing, and making it worse by not providing an edit summary, and (and that's the only aspect where the button matters) using the technical rollback permission for edit warring, but that's the least interesting aspect.

For a discussion about the Manual of Style of an online website article about a video game, people are taking this far too personally. You both can have my sympathies when discussing actually important matters like biographies of living persons or real-world wars, but this discussion here must look rather amusing to anyone uninvolved wondering where the heat comes from. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

User:91.202.138.234 reported by User:Sksatsuma (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Dawn French (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 91.202.138.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ 7"
2. 10:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ s"
3. 10:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC) to 08:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 08:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
   2. 08:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
   3. 08:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
   4. 08:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seems to be deleting content from peronsal life without description. I've reverted one of these, as has another editor but I do not wish to engage in an edit war Sksatsuma (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Please also consider this diff, as it shows intent: 11:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC). ···sardonism · t · c 11:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

What diff? You didn't provide one. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The '11:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)' link is a diff, just formatted unusually. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 31 hours by Materialscientist Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User:177.222.167.217, User:177.222.167.233, User:177.222.167.37, and User:177.222.167.143 reported by User:Krótki (Result: Protected)

Page: Moon Patrol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 177.222.167.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 177.222.167.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 177.222.167.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 177.222.167.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:46, 5 Jun 2025 (UTC) - User:177.222.167.217 adds the contentious statement to the article.
   1. 12:16, 5 Jun 2025 (UTC) - I revert the above change, stating my reason for the revert in the edit summary.
2. 17:35, 5 Jun 2025 (UTC) - 1st revert: User:177.222.167.233 adds the contentious statement again.
   1. 03:01, 6 Jun 2025 (UTC) - User:Dgpop joins the dispute: reverts the above change, stating their reason for the revert in the edit summary - the reason is essentially the same as stated earlier by myself.
3. 16:13, 6 Jun 2025 (UTC) - 2nd revert: User:177.222.167.37 adds the contentious statement again.
   1. 19:22, 6 Jun 2025 (UTC) - I revert the above change again, repeating my reason for the revert in the edit summary.
4. 01:49, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) 3rd revert: User:177.222.167.37 adds the contentious statement again, along with other minor changes.
   1. 01:52, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) - User:Adakiko joins the dispute: reverts the above changes, stating their reason for the revert in the edit summary.
   2. 01:52, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) User:Adakiko leaves a warning notice on the user's talk page.
5. 01:59, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) - 4th revert: User:177.222.167.37 adds the contentious statement again.
   1. 02:00, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) - User:Adakiko reverts the above change, repeating their reason for the revert in the edit summary.
   2. 02:00, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) - User:Adakiko leaves a second warning notice on the user's talk page.
6. 02:04, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) - 5th revert: User:177.222.167.37 adds the contentious statement again. They put a personal remark towards Adakiko in the edit summary.
   1. 04:47, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) - I revert the above change again, repeating my reason for the revert in the edit summary.
7. 04:52, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) - 6th revert: User:177.222.167.37 adds the contentious statement again. They put a personal remark towards myself in the edit summary.
   1. 05:31, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) - I revert the above change again. In the edit summary I rephrase my reason for the revert more clearly, and warn the user about the consequences of edit warring while asking to move the discussion to the talk page.
8. 05:36, 7 Jun 2025 (UTC) - 7th revert: User:177.222.167.37 adds the contentious statement again. They put a disparaging remark towards myself in the edit summary.
   1. 08:00, 9 Jun 2025 (UTC) - I revert the above change again. In the edit summary I request to move the dispute to talk page again, and demand the user to be civil in their communication.
   2. 08:13, 9 Jun 2025 (UTC) - I leave a warning notice on the user's talk page.
9. 14:28, 9 Jun 2025 (UTC) - 8th revert: User:177.222.167.143 adds the contentious statement again. They put a disparaging remark towards myself in the edit summary.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:13, 9 Jun 2025 (UTC) - I leave a warning about consequences of edit warring and incivility on the user's talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the user started leaving disparaging comments towards other editors in their edit summaries, so I refrained from discussing the issue further.

Diff of A NEW notice posted to user's talk page: 06:56, 11 Jun 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

Four anonymous IP users, whom I suspect to be a single person, repeatedly add a sentence about "Lunar Patrol" to the "Moon Patrol" article. "Moon Patrol" is a popular early arcade video game, and "Lunar Patrol" is one of a multitude of unlicenced clones of "Moon Patrol" developed over the last 40 years, published ca. 2011. The clone game is not notable by itself for inclusion in Wikipedia, and addition of it is inappropriate in an article section that discusses licenced re-releases of the original game; these are the two reasons that I considered when initially reverting this user's addition. The anonymous IP user persists in re-adding the contentious sentence to the article, ignoring all attempts at communication. Their disparaging remarks in their edit summaries show the user's intent quite clearly.

Please consider whatever appropriate administrative actions necessary.--Krótki (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 2 weeks (semi-protected) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User:14.138.73.6 reported by User:AlphaBetaGamma (Result: Protected)

Page: Democratic Party (South Korea, 2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 14.138.73.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "I'm just follwoing sourced information."
2. 03:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Labour Party (UK)'s transgender policy is more conservative the CDU of Germany but we do not deny that it is a social democratic party. Second, do not delete a sourced information without a consensus."
3. 03:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "First, We shall follow the sources. Second, Progressive Liberal Party (Bahamas) is also socially conservative for Western standards but we do not deny that it is a social-liberal party."
4. 11:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC) "added sources."
5. 05:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC) "See #Ideology"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Although the "added sources" diff isn't technically a DIRECT revert, it still reinstates reverted materials anyways. No discussions were opened, although the IP did make an ANI report against one of the editors reverting them. I did warn but TW didn't pick them up. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 06:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Page protected by Chetsford which would resolve the matter. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:Vellutis (Result: Both blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [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:

User violated 3RR while repeatedly reverting sourced content stating that Traian Băsescu is the fourth President of Romania, seemingly out of personal preference rather than in accordance with reliable sources or MOS.

• Both editors blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User:ArkadeepN21 reported by User:Vestrian24Bio (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

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

User being reported: ArkadeepN21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Summary */"
2. 09:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Summary */"
3. 08:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Summary */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Manual of Style related issues (UV 0.1.6)"
2. 09:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC) on User talk:ArkadeepN21 "Caution: Manual of Style related issues (UV 0.1.6)"

Comments:

The user keeps adding unnecessary flags to the table and as well as repetitive and forked content. Posted at RPPI, still no response. Vestrian24Bio 12:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Vestrian24Bio, that's because page protection isn't the solution to this problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User:137.239.200.49 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Already partially blocked)

Page: Chris Adler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 137.239.200.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Career */This is Chris's youngest brother. The information is misleading, derogatory and incorrect."
2. 20:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Career */Chris's liason position with habitat for humanity and HD ended on Feb 13 2024. Chris left to care for his youngest brother who had experienced bone marrow failure and his aging father. The arrest was due to his response to a scuffle at a local restaurant where his wife was pushed and Chris reacted. Assault charges were dropped. Please discontinue posting misleading and derogatory information. Thank you- family member."
3. 20:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Updated relationship info. Family source."
4. 20:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Career */Incorrect information. Chris left his role with habitat for humanity and HD in Feb of 2024 to care for his youngest brother who had bone marrow failure. The arrest was due to his reaction to his wife being pushed at a restaurant and his response. Assault charges were dropped. This info is direct family source. The repeated misinformation is inaccurate."
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC) to 20:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Career */False info. Chris's liason position with habitat for humanity and home depot ended on Feb 13, 2024 when his youngest brother was diagnosed with bone marrow failure. Since that time Chris has been caring for him and his aging father in between working on Firstborne. This from a family source."
   2. 19:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Added family/personal info from family source."
   3. 19:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Corrected grammar from previous family update."
   4. 20:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Added clarification of awards and timeline as per family contact with Chris."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Chris Adler."
2. 20:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Chris Adler."
3. 20:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Again, you can not use personal knowledge for a source. you'll be blocked altogether if you don't stop."
4. 20:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Chris Adler."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Already partially blocked, but, as FlightTime and Binksternet have hopefully noticed since, part of the removal was in accordance with WP:BLPPRIMARY. Not all of it; the block is fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm with the IP on this, they are removing BLP violations so can claim exemption via WP:3RRBLP - in particular see WP:BLPCRIME, unless I'm mistaken (always possible), policy states we don't use primary sources to cite criminal activity. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C7:90A8:EF01:58E8:7D64:1D00:B407 reported by User:1AmNobody24 (Result: Stale)

Page: Swiss people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A00:23C7:90A8:EF01:58E8:7D64:1D00:B407 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1294565866

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1294810184
2. Special:Diff/1294903598
3. Special:Diff/1295030275
4. Special:Diff/1295078868

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1295016013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They've been invited to discuss the issue on the talk page, but they instead reverted again.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1295177823

Comments:

I don't think a block on the IP will be useful, given how often they switch, but pagep protection could be helpful. Nobody (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

"They've been invited to discuss the issue on the talk page" I'm feeling dense, the last edit on Talk:Swiss people was in August 2024. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I wrote in this edit summary: "It's not a photomontage or a gallery of images, but an actual picture, so MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY shouldn't apply. If you disagree start a discussion on the talk page and stop edit warring" Their answer to that was in this edit summary: "Sill goes against mos:PEOPLEGALLE should not be illustrated of images of group members". To me this implied that they have no intention to discuss this and will just revert anyone that disagrees with them. Nobody (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so what makes this, this and this not edit warring? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted because I believed their edits were against consensus and MOS and therefore disruptive. Should I have reverted three times? No, but in hindsight that's easy to say. Nobody (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, since the reverting has stopped on both sides for now, I'm going to mark this as Stale, and just to remind everyone to take a step back before hitting that revert button. I admit, sometimes easier said than done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, then I'll go start a discussion on the talk page, but if that doesn't get any opposing replies, I will revert again, Ritchie333. Nobody (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

It might also be worth seeing if the IP is a sock, given previous discussions on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Chaptagai reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 72 hours )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295226312 by MrOllie (talk) I have support from other editors, see discussion page. Stop edit warring."
2. 13:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295225972 by Slatersteven (talk) You are the one who is edit warring by reverting to a completely unacceptable and biased version that violates multiple WP principles. Stop."
3. 13:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295222599 by Slatersteven (talk) Stop reverting to a blatantly biased version that doesn't even mention that there is a debate and conflicting studies. If you don't like my version, amend it or propose your own."
4. 12:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295216761 by MrOllie (talk) Changes reinstated. Old version is unacceptable because it misrepresented the evidence and completely ignored the ongoing scientific debate."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:18, 12 June 2025(UTC) "June 2025"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Sexual effects */ Reply"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Gender-related disputes or controversies sanctions also apply in this area, and editor is aware of them. - MrOllie (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Was just typing up a report myself. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie I've made this an arb enforced block as they are aware of the sanctions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Guguinho2025 reported by User:NacreousPuma855 (Result: Indeffed as sock)

Page: List of programs broadcast by Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guguinho2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [N/A Account was vandalizing the encyclopedia]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:
Constantly disruptive editing the page. This is also a sockpuppet account who has vandalized before. [20] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sockpuppet is back. [21] NacreousPuma855 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

User:190.22.221.31 reported by User:Bon courage (Result: IP blocked 3 months for transphobic slur)

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

User being reported: 190.22.221.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "No, other editors reverted because I'm an IP editor, not because they disagree, why? Because they didn't write any argument in the reversions, and even vandalism my talk page, they harassme only because I'm a IP editor."
2. 02:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Didn't write any argument to mantain the old version."
3. 02:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Another bot abusing his power as registered account, again didn't write any argument to mantain the old version."
4. 02:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC) ""Admins" Didn't write any argument to mantain the old version, and only changed beacuse bots controlled by registered editors do."
5. 02:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Don't argument why maintain the old version, don't contribute to vandalism."
6. 01:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295146619 by MrOllie (talk)"
7. 00:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "No sense give entity of something who didn't have."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [22]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See [23]

Comments:

• May just be best to semi the page (suggest one year), since this new Trump appointee is likely to be the locus of further disruption. Bon courage (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Haha, better suppress the edition than give arguments, what a joke. 190.22.221.31 (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• I opened a discussion on Talk:Martin Kulldorff and notified the IP on their talk page. If they can tone down their attitude and discuss civilly there, I advocate we give them a chance before banning them for 3 revert violation. Ignorance of the rules is an excuse for breaking them in my opinion, and the new editor might be able to be converted given time. If an admin disagrees, I won't argue. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Note: they have continued edit-warring. Please do not encourage this. Bon courage (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• In addition to the edit warring, they used a transphobic slur (diff). Needs a block ASAP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Blocked – for a period of 3 months. For a logged in user this would be indef for a blatant transphobic slur against another editor of this nature, but since this is an IP there might be other potential editors sharing the same IP.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Mstevenskeane reported by User:Orange sticker (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30]

Comments:
User has engaged on talk page but not gained consensus. Repeatedly inserting statement into lead that "during his tenure as the head of the CPS he "chose, controversially, not to prosecute" the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandel."(sic). A user made a semi-protected edit request[31] pointing out that this reads as if Starmer made the decision personally, which the citation does not support. Mstevenskeane has repeated reinserted this inform before even engaging on the talk page, and then engaging but not seeking consensus. I think this may be a case of WP:CIR, after this response:[32]. Orange sticker (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:82.42.214.75 reported by User:Bly000 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: [[33]]
User being reported: [[34]]

Previous version reverted to: [[35]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

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

Comments:

Seems like the account is a single serving IP editing and undoing only the particular article and specifically the Controversies section Bly000 (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Report was slightly malformed, but I was able to review it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring, breaking of 4rr rule (Result: Blocked 24h)

User being reported: Kaiseredit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff of edit warring warning : [[42]]

Diffs on recent edit warrings/4rr:

1. [[43]]
2. [[44]]
3. [[45]]
4. [[46]] 4 rr in less than 3 Hours

Diffs on previous edit warring's:

On list of wars involving Bulgaria:

1. [[47]],
2. [[48]],
3. [[49]],
4. [[50]],
5. [[51]],
6. [[52]],
7. [[53]],
8. [[54]] etc.

Bulgaria national football team:

1. [[55]]
2. [[56]]
3. [[57]]
4. [[58]] etc.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[59]], [[60]]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [[61]]

Comments:

This all happened in the last few days, including 4rr in less than a 3 Hours span on this page [[62]], not to mention several other pages where Kaiseredit is edit warring for few days now. Kaiseredit doesn't react to talk page or doesn't even bother to answer. Nor do they present any wp:rs to their additions. This is the obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. Theonewithreason (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not know how to reply to talk pages, I have not used this prior, sorry about that. I am not here to do harm, all my work has been a contribution, look it over. Kaiseredit (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You replied to at least one post there in May [[63]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

And you are still, at it [[64]], edit warring when under a report is really, really silly. Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours For edit warring across multiple articles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Skitash reported by User:ElijahUHC (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295380468

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295319179
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295391159
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sloughi&diff=prev&oldid=1295395049

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&oldid=1295394910

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sloughi&oldid=1295394888

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&oldid=1295397244

Comments:

Skitash first reverted another user's edit about alternative names for the Sloughi breed. I then made a compromise edit suggesting all alternative names be placed in a note. Skitash reverted me, and I warned them and invited them to the talk page. They reverted me again afterward. I'm avoiding further reverts and requesting admin review.

I've only made three reverts within 24 hours, so I have not violated WP:3RR. By stating "Do not revert again until issue is resolved in the talk page of the topic," ElijahUHC seems to misunderstand WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. Per these policies, the burden of achieving consensus lies with the editor making the change, not with those maintaining the stable version of the article, which had been in place for several years. I'd also like to note this editor's constant WP:FORUMSHOPPING against me and other editors, which is becoming quite disruptive.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] Skitash (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder: WP:FORUMSHOPPING is about raising the same issue in multiple venues. This thread concerns a completely different matter and article. Referring to various past noticeboards involving you or me is odd, especially when those were about unrelated issues. Our involvement in multiple discussions doesn’t mean they’re all connected.

I could also point to past reports you’ve made about me and call that forum shopping-but they aren't, and I won’t, because that’s not what this is about. This thread focuses on one specific issue. If you believe it extends beyond possible edit warring, you're welcome to take it to the appropriate venue.

Given my past interactions with @M.Bitton-who I assume is the “other editor” being referenced-I’m somewhat concerned about the neutrality of their involvement here. I’m not sure how they came across this discussion.[74] [75] ElijahUHC (Talk) 23:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I’m not accusing either user of collaboration. I’m only noting that the other user "note" may be biased due to past friction with me, which he acknowledged earlier on a different talk page as i cited earlier. ElijahUHC (Talk) 23:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jake Wartenberg: Hello, just wanted to bring your attention back to this discussion. You previously blocked ElijahUHC indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE, and later unblocked them under the condition that they avoid Morocco-related articles and demonstrate constructive editing in a different topic area, which they agreed to. However, after being unblocked, they disappeared entirely, and upon returning, immediately resumed the same POV editing on Morocco-related articles.[76][77][78] They have not made any constructive contributions elsewhere, and have only been edit warring and forum shopping since. Thanks. Skitash (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

 Note: a passing IP removed content without a valid reason and was rightfully reverted. This should have been the end of it, but no, the OP (who has been after Skitash for a while) had to to take it further; first by offering a false compromise (while deleting the Arabic name without even an explanation, let alone a valid reason), and then, lo and behold, rushing to yet another venue to try to get Skitash blocked. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As seems clear from the discussion, this is a bad-faith report. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Uniquesuprise reported by User:MrOllie (Result: blocked from the page for a week)

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.

---

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "This still does not address the contradiction nor does it address the misconception."
2. 19:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295271595 by Firefangledfeathers (talk)"
3. 19:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295270675 by Bon courage (talk)"
4. 19:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "Contradictory statement."
5. 16:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295409398 by Bon courage (talk) Section is inaccurate and is currently in dispute resolution." (after they replied to this report)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Circumcision."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2025 */ Reply"

Comments:

User has stated that "The previous reply is the last on this matter.", so it seems they do not plan to discuss on the talk page any longer. They are also aware of the contentious topics restrictions on the topic. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This page should be systematically review for violations of POV and locked with full protection. I and other editors have been trying to add more accurate and up to date information to for a consensus on this topic. The page has a long history of misinformation including sources who have specific scientific articles condemning there research. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I am referring specificity to this article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00631-y " Despite our efforts to provide a reasoned and balanced assessment of current evidence [2], they continue to rely heavily on self-cited and previously discredited studies, and repeatedly make inaccurate assessments of the quality of available evidence, based on entrenched and partisan opinion " Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This reply is emblematic of the problems that make engaging with this editor frustrating and unproductive:

1. They have never cited that source at talk, so it's unclear what relevance it has to the dispute that led to their 5+ reverts
2. It's a commentary article, not MEDRS, so we wouldn't use it to support any medical content
3. They've continued to edit war while responding here

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

1. I have cited multiple source other editors have cited multiple sources.

2. It is not a commentary article it a systematic review of self cited research resulting it misinformation.

3. I am requesting the page be fully locked and the cited sources and materials be reviewed with the most up to date information be used to write the article.

There is a serious POV issue with the article. Primarily with the cited sources and research being conducted as voluntary medical male circumcision while not making this clear distinction between neonatal circumcision.

Finally the word uncircumcised should not be used. The correct term used in medical literature is intact and is listed as so in the cited articles Uniquesuprise (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

And still at it [[79]]. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked from the article Circumcision for a week. Use the talk page to gain consensus. It's particularly disruptive to continue edit warring after responding to this report. If edit warring continues after this block expires, it will be upgraded to site-wide and indefinite length. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  How can there be consensus when these editors are push a coordinated POV Uniquesuprise (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2025 (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:Ronnnaldo7 reported by User:The Cheesedealer (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran
User being reported: Ronnnaldo7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:42, 13 June 2025
2. 21:14, 13 June 2025

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

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

Comments:

User has engaged on the talk page, and reacted to the warnings given to him (negatively) — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 16:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article talk page, I didn't believe it was against 1RR since it wasn't a true revert; it was added content per your request for WP:BALANCE, and I discussed it on the talk page. I have tried to keep my edits in WP:GoodFaith, and I think it's very disingenuous of you to say my reaction was negative after I thanked you and asked you to educate me on the matter if I am misunderstanding 1RR. I won't make changes to the article any more if it makes you feel any better.

Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Ronnnaldo7, An edit (...) that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

In your first revert, you knew you were reverting Special:Diff/1295426022 and thus referred to StarkReport when undoing their section removal.

In your second revert, you restored the section again, reverting Special:Diff/1295452614 by The Cheesedealer.

You had previously edit warred about the same section in the same article ([80], [81], [82]).

Instead of self-reverting as requested in Special:Diff/1295567669, you pointed The Cheesedealer to the article talk page as if their conduct concern was appropriate for an article talk page. It is not; article talk pages are for content, user talk pages are for conduct.

You're now accusing the reporter of disingenuous behavior and behave as if you still don't understand the issue ("if I am misunderstanding"; "if it makes you feel any better"). The main reason why you won't make changes to the article anymore is that you leave me little other choice than blocking. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

User:12.75.116.22 reported by User:ImAWubbox1984 (Result: )

Page: Michael Palance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 12.75.116.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Proof of Blackhat. NightWolf1223, Maproom and Knitsey are the same Wikipedia user trying to Vandalize the page. Undid revision 1295655215 by NightWolf1223 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Falsely slandering users of sockpuppetry, clearly Yomommacanskate evading block as shown with the same edit summary when editing the same page. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 03:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Hermes_Express reported by User:Theoneandonlylinguist09 (Result: Filer blocked for a month)

Page: Multiple including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Fiji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Prime_Minister_(Fiji) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=President_of_Fiji&action=history

User has been informed on their wikipedia page that their edits are incorrect, but he has refused to comply, does not admit his mistakes and keeps edit warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneandonlylinguist09 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Filer was recently (8 June) blocked for editwarring for the same issue that he is now reporting the other party for. The Banner talk 12:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at their edits today, they've come off the block and are going round repeating all the reverts that got them blocked in the first place. Not to excuse Hermes_Express's part in this, but that's a spectacularly bad idea and I have blocked for a month this time, and if it happens again in a month's time the next one will inevitably be indefinite. Black Kite (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:MSLQr reported by User:Orientls (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Hill station
User being reported: User:MSLQr

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:33, 15 June 2025
2. 16:09, 15 June 2025
3. 16:28, 15 June 2025

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

Talk page discussion:[85]

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

Comments:

There are broader issues with this user since he falsely claimed[87] with his first edit that the information is not supported by the sources. He has also refused to self-revert.[88] Orientls (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The editor is now trying to get around his falsification of sources by making another false claim[89] that this version says the term "Hill station" was created during the times of Ganga Dynasty or Tipu Sultan. With this logic (even if his point is considered), wheel wasn't invented before the word "wheel" was coined. Orientls (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Orientls, WP:ANI would be better for reporting falsification of sources or similar non-edit-warring behavior. I'll only check if there's an edit war here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

MSLQr and Orientls, WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS both favor the removal of material during a discussion. If you have found a consensus about disputed content, you can restore it. Until then, the article is fine without it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

User:218.102.129.236 reported by User:Magic Fizz (Result: )

Page: Tropical Storm Wutip (2025) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 218.102.129.236 (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 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 14:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Extra space removed."
   2. 14:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295733885 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Leizhou peninsula is a peninsula in Guangdong where the storm made its second landfall. Go to the talk page to demonstrate your ignorance in the subject rather than edit summaries."
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 14:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*See also*/ Added missing fullstop."
      • This edit was not a revert. Thanks. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   2. 14:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*Impact*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Interwiki link for Quốc lộ 49."
   3. 14:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Guangdong -› Leizhou peninsula. Be more specific."
   4. 14:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Wikilinked tropical cyclone naming."
   5. 14:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Adverb."
   6. 14:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Specified the whereabout of the island when it appears for the very first time in the main text."
3. 14:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 13:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 13:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Impact */"
      • This was not a revert. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   2. 13:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295615278 by HurricaneEdgar (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tropical Storm Wutip (2025)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This IP is linked to 218.102.164.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was recently blocked after I warned them. After that, the user began using a different IP address to engage in an edit war with me. However, despite repeated explanations, this IP did not listen and continued mass reverting. HurricaneEdgar 14:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

IP addresses are re-assigned on and off. I was not aware of any block until I saw this message of Edgars. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

• Thank you for the notification. Please refer to the talk page discussion with HurricaneEdgar for more details. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Based on that talk page discussion, my preference is to just wait a bit and see if everyone can just calm down and resolve to do better in the future. The situation is more complex than a mere review of the history would make it seem. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Whattfirrad reported by User:Magic Fizz (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Dio Brando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Dio's hair is long"
2. 02:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Nah Dio's hair is long. Go learn the difference between long hair and short hair."
3. 01:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */ you don't know the difference between normal Dio's long hair and high Dio's short hair?? did you watch jojo? It's totally different haircuts. Dio's hair was always long. different than high Dio's short hair . Many jojo accounts and even jojo wiki confirmed araki meant high Dio's short haircut. https://jojowiki.com/Dio_Brando araki was talking about high Dio. Why don't you accept the fact Dio's hair is long???? You didn't even jojo ??"
4. 23:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */ In jojo wiki they confirmed araki meant high Dio https://jojowiki.com/Dio_Brando

Also other accounts on Twitter confirmed araki meant high Dio.

Dio's hair is long. What is too hard to understand? High dio has a short haircut. Looks nothing like regular Dio's long hair. Go talk to jojowiki if you don't understand"

1. 21:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Dio's hair is long. Not short and araki was talking about high Dio's form not regular Dio. Source In jojo wiki they confirmed araki meant high Dio https://jojowiki.com/Dio_Brando"
2. 08:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Araki was talking about high DIO's haircut form after sucking Joseph blood. Not Dio."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dio Brando."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Alphamale03 reported by User:Magic Fizz (Result: Page protected)

Page: Punjabi Hindus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Alphamale03 (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 18:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 18:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295721617 by Ekdalian (talk)"
   2. 18:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295766357 by Alphamale03 (talk)"
   3. 19:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295767167 by Alphamale03 (talk) I agree that Punjabis are having much bigger shares. The whole GT road belt and district like Yamunanagar, Panchkula, Hisar, Sirsa etc are having children taking second language as punjabi always in schools too. We should not confuse folks with ethnicity vs caste."
   4. 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295719770 by Indieraw (talk) I agree that Punjabis are having much bigger shares. The whole GT road belt and district like Yamunanagar, Panchkula, Hisar, Sirsa etc are having children taking second language as punjabi always in schools too. We should not confuse folks with ethnicity vs caste."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Punjabi Hindus."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Are we sure that's a violation of 3RR? It appears two of them were Alphamale reverting himself? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

MilesVorkosigan, not all edit warring consists of four edits within 24 hours, and not all page protections are purely in response to a specific edit war. In this case here, I protected the page and the need for any other action just vanished. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Italopiombino reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 1 week partial block)

Page: Hasan Agha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Italopiombino (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 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC) to 16:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique is indeed meets all the criteria of a valid secondary source."
   2. 16:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique indeed meets all the criteria of a valid secondary source"
2. 08:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "I have answered all of M.Bitton's perplexities thoroughly, who's demonstrated not to have read my source before hastily deleting what I wrote. The fact that account is closer to the events narrated in it can only be an argument to its reliability, not to its lack thereof."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC) to 20:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "That's exactly what the source says, see page 81."
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC) to 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "You were wrong to hastily delete what I wrote: the book which cites the manuscript is from the 19th century, but the manuscript containing the account of Hasan Agha's kidnapping, that is, manuscript V 248, which is cited by said source, is from the 16th century, as clearly explained in page 81 of Édouard Cat's book. It is said that the documents contained in the manuscript were collected by Juan Paez de Castro, who worked for Philip II of Spain during the 16th century, not the 19th, of course."
   2. 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC) to 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hasan Agha."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ new section"

Comments:

Being adamant that old primary sources are more reliable than modern secondary scholarly ones is not an excuse for the battleground attitude and the edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

"Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique , the source I cited, can in no way be considered a primary source. The text reported from the manuscript cannot be considered a primary source either, since it's not a firsthand account written by Hasan Agha, nor by Alcayde Ali, and it's not even a report directly written by someone who spoke to them, since it's not written by Nicola Iba the Sardinian, the priest who dealth with Alcayde, but by Juan Perez or Paez De Castro, who never spoke with the renegades, but wrote an account of Alcayde Ali's and Hasan Agha's life, after receiving information, possibly from Nicola Iba or another ambassador. The account itself having been written many decades after their kidnapping.

So your criticism is again not valid, neither "Édouard Cat's work describing and reporting the content of the manuscript, nor the text pertaining to Hasan's life contained in said manuscript, can be classified as a primary source.

In addition to that, the scholarly source you cited, are in no way contradictory to the more detailed scholarly secondary source I cited. Italopiombino (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Even assuming for the sake of the argument that the manuscript itself could considered a primary source - which is debatable because it deals with events removed by several decades from its composition, and not witnessed directly, nor was it written by someone who spoke with a witness - the source I actually cited is Édouard Cat's work, not the manuscript itself. The manuscript is in turn cited in Édouard Cat's report, see the definition given in the Wikipedia page about primary sources:

"Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources."

Therefore, if I had only cited the content of the manuscript, after having consulted it myself, without citing Édouard Cat's work, then, arguably, the source I cited could be considered primary, but since I cited Édouard Cat's publication, and not the manuscript directly, the source I cited is in fact secondary, not primary, and therefore a secondary source according to Wikipedia's standards.

Édouard Cat gave a summary and a brief comment upont the dating and authorship of the text in page 81, making his work, the one I actually cited in the footnote, a secondary, not primary source. I did mention the manuscript, for the sake of accuracy, but not as the source cited directly in the footnote.

Aside from that, the idea that a secondary source is necessarily better than a primary one is not held by Wikipedia, the page "Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources" states:

<<Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, not merely mindless, knee-jerk reactions to classification of a source as "primary" or "secondary".>>

<<"Primary" does not mean "bad">>

<<"Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.

Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.>>

Let's now go back to M.Bitton's first criticism, since he only came up with the secondary vs primary sources argument after having been proven wrong, without acknowledging his first make: his cricism was about the dating of the source I cited. M.Bitton, after hastily deleting what I wrote, justified his action by stating: "That's not what the source says + it's from the 19th century (not 16th)".

M.Bitton was clearly talking about the dating of the manuscript, which is the only source I assigned a date to, not about the source I actually cited in the footnote, which I never assigned to the 16th century. So, either M.Bitton lacks basic reading comprehension skills, and therefore made this blunder out of poor reading skills, or, as I proposed earlier, didn't actually read the source I mentioned, and thought the manuscript was dated to the 19th century, which, as I've already amply demonstrated, is wrong, since the manuscript's date is assigned to the 16th century in page 81.

So, regardless of the nature of M.Bitton's blunder, it is clear that he mistakenly deleted my first contribution, without however acknowledging his undeniable error.

This should be carefully taken note of by all the editors and moderators interested in this discussion: not acknowledging a mistake, despite being amply proven wrong several times, is indeed a sign of bad faith. So, one should consider whether M.Bitton is honestly trying to supervise the quality of this Wikipedia article, or if, by deleting my contributions repeatedly and trying to have me silenced, he's actually doing so out of a personal grudge, evidently displayed by his lack of acknowledgement of his first blunder, which is what after all sparked this whole endless discussion. Italopiombino (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

None of that justifies edit warring. I have partially blocked Italopiombino for a week. M.Bitton is cautioned about edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User:UtherSRG reported by User:TakuyaMurata (Result: Page protected)

Page: Complete algebraic curve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UtherSRG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [92]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [93]
2. [94]
3. [95]
4. [96]
5. [97]

To win the dispute, the user is even now threating a block. [98] Is this really an acceptable behavior?? I have at least tried to engage with the editor in the talkpage. (I suppose I myself technically violated 3RR. For that, I apologize. I got too emotional.) -- Taku (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

UtherSRG and TakuyaMurata, honestly...
What is wrong with you? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps as a very first step, can we agree that the edit summary of Special:Diff/1295770220 is not factually correct? Removal of tags is vandalism, really? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I admit I got clearly carried away (and in particular I should stopped at 3RR). But what disturbed me is an suggestion that I should be banned because I have removed a cleanup template. Is that new normal in Wikipedia that I wasn't aware of? Taku (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

That's from the {{uw-tdel}} template series. It's unlikely to be helpful in a dispute between two highly experienced editors and almost impossible to have been intended as a threat of the warning administrator performing a block themselves in the given situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, ok. That explains. (I didn't think you can use a block to win a dispute.) Anyway, I think the dispute can use some intervention from outside, as UtherSRG has been so insisting. Taku (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If you can replace "UtherSRG has" by "we both have", it's almost a good statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that's why we had so many reverts, and I know I should have stopped earlier. But UtherSRG's behavior should also be scrutinized, correct? Including a threat. Moreover, one editor cannot insist on a template. So, if there is a dispute on placing a template, the status quo should prevail, correct? Taku (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.
This section here is a far greater danger to UtherSRG than you. There is no need to worry about their behavior being scrutinized, with my first question being pretty stern towards them, not you.
Regarding the status quo, this is not a good rule of thumb. In general, Wikipedia places the burden of proof or the onus to obtain a consensus on those favoring inclusion of the material (WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE et cetera). If there is a debate about whether something should be in an article, a good general measure is to keep it out of the article until those who want it in have found a consensus for that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. But no the dispute isn't about whether some materials should be in the article or not. I explicitly asked if there is some concern about the materials in the article and got no answer. Like said, the dispute is about placing a particular maintenance template (which in my opinion is redundant), and, if there is an objection, one editor cannot insist on it, right? Taku (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You got an answer here, and arguably in the edit summaries of [99], [100], [101] and [102]. The dispute is about whether something should be in the article, in multiple ways (references in the article, maintenance template above the article). If there is an objection, one editor – like you – cannot insist on reverting to their preferred revision again and again. There are few exceptions (WP:3RRNO) and none of them seems to apply. The main purpose of this discussion here is to evaluate whether "I have edit warred, and I have stopped, and I won't continue" is something both editors can say or if administrative action is needed to prevent it from continuing. Which would be completely absurd when two highly experienced editors have edit warred about something as unimportant as a maintenance template.

If I understand your current path of discussion correctly, you're trying to focus on the other user's misbehavior and seek confirmation about them having behaved badly. Don't worry: This is not needed. This was clear at 20:57.

I'm now mostly waiting for a reply from UtherSRG. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

...which may have been delayed by a lack of notification on their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

This is not the first time Taku and I have butted heads. We are often at odds with how to handle matters. I do feel that what they were doing was vandalism; if removal of maintenance tags is not vandalism, after being given information on why the tag should remain, why have the {{uw-tdel}} series of warnings? And yup, I carried things too far in my reverts; usually a 2nd revert gets things to end. I feel justified in the block warning, though. They'd previously been warned on an article talk page and that user considered that WP:CIR might be in play. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

UtherSRG, vandalism is defined as intentional damage; not all disruptive editing is vandalism. Trying to improve the encyclopedia by repeatedly restoring a revision is disruptive but not vandalism. It is especially not the type of obvious vandalism described at WP:3RRNO#4. The existence of a template neither allows nor forbids behavior. Having carried things too far is true but has nothing to do with how many reverts other users normally invest into an edit war with you. At the moment, my competence concerns are mostly directed towards you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Best I can say is I acknowledge that interacting with Taku, he gets under my skin in a bad way; that I will be mindful of that and, at worst, grab someone else to deal with I what I see are erroneous actions on his part. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the block warning, as that was a fear voiced above to my understanding, could you clarify that you never intended to place a block yourself? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Correct. I would have grabbed someone else to do it. It had the intended effect of getting Taku to stop, which was my only aim. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected
  If, beyond maintenance tags, there is something disputed that should be removed until a consensus is found, please let me know (and/or click here to file an edit request). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The case is closed but just for the record, I do admit recently I have often found myself in disputes with NPP or AfC crowds. I suspect this may be due to the cultural thing. These editors tend to deal with new users, and I noticed they often just throw policies or threat blocks instead of engaging in meaningful discussions. They also tend to emphasize authorship; i.e.., they often say it is the author’s responsibility to show the notability or source the claims, which is *not* true. We as a community are responsible; e.g., how the notability is established matters not who establishes it. Similarly, a word choice like “vandalism” suggests they are not seeing me as a fellow editor. I guess that’s the core of my problem with UtherSRG. I cannot change the culture but at least it explains the situation. —- Taku (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

It's probably not worthwhile to continue discussion here. Will follow up at your user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Hi again. So, the case may not be closed after all and the page may need to be protected again (not up to me to decide, obviously). In short, I feel like a cultural crash. For example, @UtherSRG: insists on the need for citations for a simple example or simple logical consequences. That's just not true and if we insist, we can't really write math articles. I don't doubt the user has a good intentions but doesn't seem to understand how math articles are typically written. -- Taku (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Oh by the way, I changed my mind about the tag. If they want a win, then I can give it. I have a Ph.D. in math and my time is more valuable than spent on dealing with something so trivia like this. -- Taku (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

TakuyaMurata and UtherSRG, if either of you continue to revert, I'm going to partially block you from the article. No crisis is created by leaving the article in its status quo state, and there's plenty of time to reach consensus at talk or seek dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Off topic

I don't like to use this card but: I have a Ph.D. in math so maybe just maybe I know some math and probably know what I am doing (i.e., what assertions are nontrivial and what are not). If I am known for writing low-quality articles, maybe just maybe some other math editors took some steps to prevent me from editing math articles. I don't think it's so unreasonable to ask to leave math editors alone when they are not known for causing vandalisms or some other negative contributions (I am not infallible but the positive should far outweight the negative, I want to think). -- Taku (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC) Your knowledge is not important. What's important is what's valuable to the readers of this general encyclopedia. In fact, your PhD hampers your ability to assess what a general reader needs. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC) You missed my point: it does require some technical backgroud to tell which assertion is trivial or not (e.g., if something is routine and thus does not require a citation). Thus, if someone without a proper background tries to edit a technical article, their contribution can be misguided or detrimental as unfortunetely your contributions are (I don't doubt your good intention but compitence is needed especially in technical articles.) It is not unreasonable to let editors with good track records to take care of articles instead of novices such as yourself (in the case of math articles). Taku (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Niceboi33 reported by User:FlightTime Phone (Result: No violation)

Page: Brain Damage (Pink Floyd song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Niceboi33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "I added a SOURCE to the genre I’ve been trying to put in. Let’s see if it gets taken down by the high and mighty."
2. 13:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC) to 13:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 13:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Brain Damage (Pink Floyd song)."
2. 13:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ + re"
3. 13:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ + re"
4. 13:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ lol"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• FlightTime Phone, I'm not sure what I'm looking at. Special:Diff/1296196636 is relatively fine but should have had an edit summary. You then ask for a source on their talk page ([103]). All good. The user adds a source, should perhaps be informed about Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#RhythmOne, is then asked for a source and reverted without an explanation ([104]) as you noticed that during the typing of your message, the content reappeared.
  You then asked a strange question ([105], why did you not add that in with your edit). In response to that message, there was one single full-revision revert that, without its edit summary, would be an acceptable response to what you wrote. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Why do you feel an immediate level-4 warning was necessary here? That's something we typically only use after several prior warnings since it assumes bad faith. — tony 17:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• Well, first of all there's no violation here, because two of the four diffs above were consecutive. The genre "Psychedelic rock" which FTP is reverting to, is unsourced. At least Niceboi33 attempted to source the genre, even if it doesn't (apparently) source the genre for that song. User:FlightTime Phone; I would suggest sourcing the "Psychedelic rock" genre, or that will be removed as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, thank you Black Kite however, as I've stated many times, I'm not that concerned with content, it's the process, that I've learned in my tenure, that I apply to most of my reverts and whatever, actually I'm more concerned with Niceboi33's talk page comments. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not great, to be honest. User:Niceboi33, assuming that a song has a particular genre because the album it is taken from has a particular genre is original research (because otherwise albums that mix genres would not exist). You need to find a source saying the song is that genre. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for my behavior, however I do believe this was some kind of ego thing. I sourced the genre but was angry that it was removed which led me to source it again and write a pretty scathing comment. I hope this can be resolved because I don’t think a warning like that was necessary on my part, due to this being my first edit since 2022. Niceboi33 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd say this is closed without action here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User:194.233.152.122 reported by User:LaffyTaffer (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Wainlode Cliff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 194.233.152.122 (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 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC) to 21:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 21:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296251326 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"
   2. 21:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296250379 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"
2. 20:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296249303 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"
3. 20:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295904407 by LaffyTaffer (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Wainlode Cliff."
2. 20:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wainlode Cliff."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have reverted their third revert. If nothing happens afterwards, there's no reason for further action IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Narrator: There would be, in fact, a reason for further action.. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the premature report, I got wires crossed and forgot 1.1 and 1.2 counted as a single revert. Taffer😊💬_(she/they) 07:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

User:2001:999:481:968:AD00:F3C7:38B:D2C4 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: List of airlines of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2001:999:481:968:AD00:F3C7:38B:D2C4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 21:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 20:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 20:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 20:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of airlines of Pakistan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Added additional rv which occurred after the original report was made. Danners430 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• * Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Partial blocked from List of airlines of Pakistan for 24 hours.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

User:50.104.26.15 (malformed report; already blocked)

I warned this IP editor 3 times to stop vandalizing various articles. He's already been blocked before, so I recommend a longer block. CANthony0125 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

User:124.217.113.188 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: IP user blocked)

Page: The Reality War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 124.217.113.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 03:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 03:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 02:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 02:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
6. 02:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
7. 02:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC) to 02:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 02:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
9. Consecutive edits made from 01:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC) to 02:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 01:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   3. 01:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   4. 02:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   5. 02:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   6. 02:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   7. 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   8. 02:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
10. Consecutive edits made from 01:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC) to 01:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
    1. 01:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""
    2. 01:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Basically the typical multiple revert thing, blatantly violating 3RR. Apparently those actors weren't in that episode, but I didn't look further, I only saw this IP edit warring. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I also reported them to WP:AIV. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Materialscientist: It looks like they are using multiple IP addresses so I also added a 1 month partial block to two IP ranges for the two pages being disrupted. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Tikitorch2 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE)

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

User being reported: Tikitorch2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296456942 by MrOllie (talk) Makes extraordinary scientific claim based on a biased, low quality source to damage reputation of BLP. Fixed with in-text attribution while talk page discussion for better fix in progress"
2. 03:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296455409 by MrOllie (talk) immediately fixed BLP extraordinary, poorly sourced claim with in-text attribution"
3. 03:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296454693 by Bon courage (talk) open to suggestions for better sourcing in the talk page discussion but fixing again poorly sourced extraordinary claim"
4. 02:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296453206 by GeogSage (talk) Onus is on editors reinserting extraordinary claim to provide sources"
5. 02:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296451368 by Bon courage (talk) due to poor sourcing without in-text attribution"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 03:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Brownstone Institute Essay */ Reply"

Comments:

Note that this relates to contentious topic COVID-19, which Tikitorch2 is aware of. Talk page consensus is clear on this one, as are the sources. MrOllie (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I am aware this issue is contentious and several months ago I tried to fix it by discussing the science with other editors to show them why the source wasn't very reliable. This time I am trying to focus more on Wikipedia's guidelines.

I fixed the poor WP:BLPSOURCE issue with as minimal an edit as possible--just added in-text attribution and source citations while the talk page discussion continues. I started the talk page discussion to address several wikipedia guideline issues in the first sentence of a paragraph about an essay Martin Kulldorff wrote.

The first sentence describes Martin Kulldorff's essay and segues into a lot of details from a critical response essay by Jonathan Howard. Problems with the first sentence include:

1. Inaccurate summary of the primary source essay

2. Fails to cite the primary source essay (despite it being the topic of the paragraph) and instead uses a summary from the biased secondary source

3. Makes an extraordinary scientific claim that Covid has higher mortality risk to children than influenza without either a scientific citation in in-text attribution. The claim does not seem to be verifiable based on looking at published papers, one of which I added as a citation.

4. Overall lacks balance and appears biased against Kulldorff

There is also an issue with synthesis of data from two different periods of time in the last sentence of the paragraph but that didn't seem justified to remove without getting consensus first. Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Also I have one further thing to say in my defense, several of the editors, in particular Bon Courage and Mr. Ollie seem to stonewall all corrections on these topics. Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• An indef will likely spare the Project more of this kind of disruption. Bon courage (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Remove without explain (Result: Declined as malformed)

I am reporting User User:Epicion for edit warring on the article Kuberaa.

My constructive and sourced edit was removed by User:Epicion in this revision: 1296458621. The edit summary simply states: "Restored revision 1296458621 by Epicion (talk)", with no valid reason or explanation for reverting my contribution.

I spent around 45 minutes carefully writing and sourcing that edit, and it complied with Wikipedia's guidelines. There was no discussion initiated by the user on the article's talk page or mine. This kind of silent reversion of good-faith contributions without justification is disruptive and discourages editors.

I kindly request administrator review for possible edit warring and disruptive editing.

Thank you.

Farjana837 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)I am reporting a case of edit warring on the article Kuberaa.

bollybudget.com, m9.news and Wikipedia:TIMESOFINDIA are not considered as reliable sources. The Economic Times and Live Mint sources are about X reviews, hence unreliable per WP:FRUIT. Epicion (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok but I waste 45 mint to writing it Farjana837 (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

TOI comes between reliable and unreliable. For box office numbers, though, there may be better sources. Bollybudget is unreliable. I'm not sure about m9.news. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

See the section which I have removed. Epicion (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. This probably isn't a matter for this page anyway, and I'd encourage everyone to discuss at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Mauls (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: London Pneumatic Despatch Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296490914

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296511971
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296514432
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296518517
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296519216

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&oldid=1296519897

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&oldid=1296519198

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SchroCat&oldid=1296519897

Comments:
Have tried to resolve on the Talk page, having initiated discussion following two undiscussed reverts. I followed the user's suggested actions, and they also reverted those edits. Mauls (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I made no suggestions for you to add that, and your edits were part of the edit warring you undertook as shown below. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

You know you have to watch your own edits too? S0 far your reverts on the page are:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=prev&oldid=1296507565
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296516807
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518244
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518681
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518979

You edit warred from the off and I had to ask you to use the talk page. You ignored BRD and WP:STATUS QUO, but kept changing, despite no consensus to do so. Not all your edits were reverted, just a small number which were the subject of the discussion I asked you to start. Why you decided to to ignore STATUSQUO is a mystery to me. Why you then decided to breach WP:CIVIL and throw insults at me is another. - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't ignore STATUSQUO - I stopped, discussed, then made edits implementing the alternative you proposed. Which you then also reverted. As for civil, I questioned whether you felt WP:OWN, and you have twice accused me of being 'childish', and twice said my edits were 'ridiculous', so I do think it's a bit rich to accuse me of being uncivil. Mauls (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

As the thread was still ongoing you edit warred back in stuff I took out in my first challenge to your addition. I did not propose any such additions, so I do not know why you put back in a manual revert something that had already been taken out. As to CIVIL: you accused me of ownership: that's uncivil. Don't expect to throw around unfounded uncivil accusations and expect no pushback from people. I don't presume any ownership on that article (several of your other edits to the page, including adding tags) were untouched and still remain on it. Do you honestly think I would leave them in place if I felt any 'ownership' of the page? I'll remind you what it what it also says on OWN: "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. When you make up such accusations, it is a personal attack. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Whilst we're mentioning uncivil, I also forget to mention your use of "FFS" and "tiresome".

As to why, literally "better dealt with in the text" was what you said in response to why you'd twice reverted the infoboxes. So I added the additional information that the infoboxes had into the text. Mauls (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

To respond to the specific point on my edits:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=prev&oldid=1296507565

   This was my one initial revert.

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296516807
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518244
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518681
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=next&oldid=1296518979

   These four are making the changes - different from the original reverted content - this time those items placed within the text, as you yourself suggested on the talk page in your comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALondon_Pneumatic_Despatch_Company&diff=1296517714&oldid=1296517074.

Mauls (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Number 1 was your first revert, as you admit

Number 2 contained the some of the same information as was in the first revert (ie. it was a partial manual revert)

Number 3: My bad. That was an error on my part and I've struck it above

Number 4 contained the some of the same information as was in the first and second reverts (ie. it was a partial manual revert)

Number 5 contained the some of the same information as was in the all four of the above edits.

You should have continued the discussion, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO. Why you thought that continuing to edit war was a good idea, I have no idea. I'll repeat: I made no suggestion to add pointless details to text, so please don't say I did. - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for 3rr breach and incivility. Mauls warned about edit warring and accusations of OWN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, I welcome the feedback and will try to learn from it. Mauls (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Irruptive Creditor reported by User:Dahawk04 (Result: )

Page: Newsom v. Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Irruptive Creditor (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 00:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC) to 00:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 00:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "First off, again, the Insurrection Act was not at issue. Second, beyond the fact primary sources should not be used, an amicus brief carries no water and is not a court order. Third, the newly-added news sources still don't exist, and even if they do, are not very reliable as it's clear they're opinion pieces. So much original research and synthesis here."
   2. 00:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Removed improperly added primary reference."
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC) to 19:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Removed primary source citation, and for User: Cbls1911, that redundant since it is implied by the express statement that the President likely was within statutory authority, as the memorandum wouldn't be within statutory authority if it was issued contrary to the procedures thereunder."
   2. 19:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "External link not appropriate, that’s not a final judgement on the merits, and so is unnecessary to include per the MOS for law articles"
3. 01:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Again, the Insurrection Act was never invoked, that's fake news. Rather that was 10 U.S.C. 12406 as the Presidential Memorandum "Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions" issued on June 7, 2025 clearly states: "I [President Trump] hereby call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel." Mentioning Perpich v. DOD in "See Also" is OR."
4. 01:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Removed fake news. First, 10 U.S.C. 12406 was authority invoked, not the Insurrection Act. Second, there is no “10 U.S.C. § 252” of the Insurrection Act, as that isn’t the Insurrection Act, 10 U.S.C. 253 is. Finally, title 10 of the United States Code is a positive law title, so 10 U.S.C. 253 is the Insurrection Act and the Insurrection Act is 10 U.S.C. 253, they are synonyms but the same thing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 15:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"
2. 23:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"
3. 00:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"
4. 00:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Remove Reactions section */ Reply"

Comments:

Intervening edits by I and other editors were made between the most recent edits, of which there was only one revert of your edits. Moreover, @Jmik92 and I were not trading barbs. Many of the purported sources you had added (like this one linking to WSJ) do not even exist. It does not exist on the WayBack Machine, it does not exist on Archive.today, or otherwise. I can find no evidence even suggesting that such ever existed at all, quite literally fake news or a hallucinated citation as far as can be seen. In addition, there are also serious problems with original research and synthesis, take this paragraph of yours from one of your edits there for example:

Secondly, the state argues that the order was procedurally defective because the President transmitted it to the adjutant general rather than “through the governor” as § 12406 requires. Finally, California invokes federalism principles: involuntary federalization of a state militia, it says, violates the Tenth Amendment and the anti-commandeering doctrine articulated in New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.

That paragraph cites this, which is an amicus brief submitted by a third-party. It is not part of the court's decision or arguments by the named parties and cannot be attributed as part of the reasoning therein. Then there is this mess:

In addition, the deployment of active-duty Marines as crowd-control forces is alleged to breach the Posse Comitatus Act, with California citing Bissonette v. Haig for the rule that military personnel may not perform "direct" law-enforcement functions.

I have no idea where you got this from, but the case, Bissonette v. Haig, appears nowhere in the corresponding citation for the claim made in that paragraph above. I checked the whole document, it is not even mentioned once (the order even has a handy list of all the precedents being cited and that case is not one of them). This and many other errors, are why your content was removed, it was not an edit war. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Irruptive Creditor — just to clear the air:

• The “missing” Mattis story wasn’t fabricated. Mattis’s open letter was published on 3 June 2020 in *The Atlantic*. During the June 2025 L.A. protests several outlets recycled that 2020 text as though it were new and (mistakenly) credited it to Military.com. When the error was caught the pieces were pulled, so every link to them now 404s. Snopes documents the mix-up: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-la-protests-mattis-statement/.
• Other dead links = paywall/link-rot. The WSJ, NYT, and WaPo items cited in the draft moved behind subscription gateways or were rejiggered in later CMS migrations. That is ordinary link-rot, not source invention.
• Four reverts in 24 h (→ 3RR)

01:26 19 Jun 2025 “Removed fake news …”

01:32 19 Jun 2025 “Again, the Insurrection Act was never invoked …”

19:04 20 Jun 2025 “Removed primary source citation, and for User: Cbls1911 …”

19:09 20 Jun 2025 “External link not appropriate …”

Four reverts inside a single day exceeds the three-revert rule.

• Tone / direct address

* “@Dahawk04, look, **many of your sources** 404-ed, or worse don’t even exist at all …” (20 Jun 2025 18:49 UTC)

* “First off … the newly-added news sources still don’t exist … So much original research and synthesis here.” (21 Jun 2025 00:25 UTC)

Using second-person (“your sources”) and labels like “fake news” shifts discussion from content to contributors, which bumps against WP:CIVIL.

Dahawk04 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Various edits were made, but there were only two edits which are marked by page logs as reverts, the first was for obvious vandalism involving a fabricated quote, see here. The second is here. As for the edits made on June 19, those were made two days ago and not within a 24 hour time period, let alone 48 hours, see the UTC timestamps and are thus irrelevant anyhow. Pleasant editing, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Złotyzłoty33 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: )

Page: Central Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Złotyzłoty33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Stable version"
2. 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296208670 by ZH8000 (talk) Minority view and in conflict with the article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Central Europe."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Repeated reversion by Złotyzłoty33 */ new section"

Comments:

User:QueenEmeraldFang reported by User:Consarn (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296683705 by TonySt (talk)"
2. 15:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 15:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296680982 by Consarn (talk) bullying"
4. 14:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296680287 by Consarn (talk) Vandelism"
5. 14:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296673082 by Soetermans (talk) Vandelism"
6. 12:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1296664973 by Soetermans (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Palworld."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Applaused reported by User:Audit2020 (Result: Blocked)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff 09:33, 20 June 2025 ]
2. [diff 10:04, 20 June 2025]
3. [diff 14:42, 20 June 2025]
4. [diff 14:42, 20 June 2025]
5. [diff 08:26, 21 June 2025]
6. [diff 14:29, 21 June 2025]

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

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

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

Comments:
Initially user unwilling to discuss in the talk page, and the user also broadcast his/her intention to not discuss about it in an edit summary such as here. There multiple editors already engaged in the discussion before the edit warring which the user not responding even though already pinged multiple times Audit2020 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Applaused has continued reverting despite exceeding the three-revert rule (3RR), often using the same edit summary repeatedly. On the talk page, the user has used unnecessary capitalisation and language such as “shameless,” “bias one,” and comparisons to theft, which do not align with Wikipedia’s civility guidelines. I respectfully request that an administrator review the situation and provide guidance where appropriate.

Applaused now insists on reverting the page to a version from January. I have advised the user that any such major amendment should first be discussed on the talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia’s consensus-building processes, rather than unilaterally enforcing personal preferences.

For reference, the last protected version was version 1280917070, protected by administrator Daniel Case on 17 March 2025 at 05:01 (UTC), while the last stable version prior to the recent dispute was version 1293711063, dated 3 June 2025. On 20 June 2025, Applaused began reinstating significant amendments without first engaging in discussion on the talk page, and the subsequent edits have substantially exceeded the three-revert rule (3RR)--Native99girl (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Ttocserp is conducting an edit war on List of culinary herbs and spices (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page:List of culinary herbs and spices
User being reported: Ttocserp

Comments:

Ttocserp is engaged in disruptive editing WP:DE - a pattern of editing that blocks progress towards the improvement of an article — in this case the List of culinary herbs and spices. Continuing this disruptive editing is considered as vandalism. WP:VANDAL He/she is making repeated reversions of any edits that are being made to expand and improve the level of detail to this. Alternative ways forward have been suggested, without any engagement at all with the suggestions. I have given a "Stop edit warring" alert WP:WAR WP:3RR that I believe has been breached.

A request to Chicdat has been made by me to arbitrate and pull a resolution together.

Ttocserp is acting in a completely unreasonable manner by making knee-jerk reversions of edits that are being made to improve this list article and is not making any positive contributions at all.

For further info, please refer to the latest changes to the talk and View history pages of the "List of culinary herbs and spices".

Can you restore the last version of the page before Ttocserp made the significant 3rd reversion and then put a temporary block on further edits until the issue of disruptive editing, that has now constituted vandalism, and edit warring has been resolved.

Please will you step in to resolve this matter.

N.B. This pro-forma, though well-meaning in giving a standard format, is not readily discernible and is not supported with explanatory notes. Can it be restructured to give this?

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

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

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing this article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)