Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Ergzay reported by User:Rahio1234 (Result: Reporter warned)

Page: Wikipedia:Sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User readded edit. Rahio1234 10:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rahio1234 Seems to be repeatedly trying to prevent the normal use of the wikipedia sandbox by reverting any changes made to it. Please give them a warning and instructions on proper use of the wikipedia sandbox. They also have extreme english difficulty as they could not explain why they kept reverting any changes made to the sandbox. Ergzay (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I gave them a warning on their talk page about edit warring, but they promptly removed it:

See edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rahio1234&diff=prev&oldid=1226549774 Ergzay (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I have cleared out my talk page of this junk that was added by rahio1234, to see it as it was before the removal see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ergzay&oldid=1226549960 Ergzay (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ergzay i ask the Bbb23. Rahio1234 10:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

What is "the Bbb23"? Ergzay (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This admin. Rahio1234 10:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So you asked this admin how to use the sandbox? Or do you mean you asked the admin on if I was misusing the sandbox? Ergzay (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll also mention the two people who have blocked you previously @331dot and @Drmies. Ergzay (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Rahio1234, the Wikipedia sandbox has instructions on how it may be used and a list of things it cannot be used for (material that is "promotional, copyrighted, offensive, or libelous"). Are you claiming that Ergzay is posting material that falls into that list?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 Ok. Rahio1234 13:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Rahio1234: That is not an answer. This report is an abuse of process, which is probably not intentional but rather demonstrates incompetence both in the bringing of it and how you've handled it after it was brought. You are therefore warned that any continuation of this kind of disruptive conduct will result in a block without any additional notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 Can you do something more than a warning? He's been blocked several times before for other things. Ergzay (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 The only thing I posted was a copy paste of a talk page that I was trying to figure out why the build-in "Reply" button didn't work and just gave errors. Rahio1234 immediately came along and started repeatedly reverting my changes in the middle of my testing and then sending me repeated automated warnings via Twinkle when I ignored him and continued editing. Ergzay (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Ergzay: AFAIK, the Wikipedia sandbox may be reset at any time by any editor and is frequently reset automatically by a bot. I suggest you use your own sandbox if you want the material to remain for you to work on and review.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 Thank you. Still user @Ergzay was not edit this wikipedia namespace Rahio1234 13:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Rahio1234: I don't understand what you're trying to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 He thinks you're telling me off about how I was using sandbox. Also, for the record, I wasn't trying to make the sandbox stick around. He would literally revert my changes less than a minute after I made them, over and over again. Just look at the edit log. I really think something more than a warning should be given. Ergzay (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 Also he's still repeatedly resetting other people's test pages every chance he gets on the sandbox. See the additional people complaining on his talk page. I'd prefer we didn't have to create another ANI entry for this subject. Ergzay (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Or-Shalem reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: Page extended-confirmed protected, user partially blocked for 2 weeks)

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

User being reported: Or-Shalem (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 22:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) to 22:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 22:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "I removed the poor sources and added some better ones. I read through all the articles. Nothing here justifies calling the company "Israeli." Even saying it was founded by an Israeli couple is dubious as none of the articles here even mention that Carmen is Israeli. We don't know if she is. The current info is objective and matter-of-fact, as supported by all sources. Do not change until admin comes."
   2. 22:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC) ""
2. 21:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by M.Bitton (talk): Because it's subjective"
3. 21:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "infobox fixed. neutral info restored. wait til admin gets here"
4. 20:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1226615469 by Or-Shalem (talk): Can you wait for the admin you contacted to moderate this discussion, please? I don't instants why you are so desperate to force an inference in the opener"
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) to 19:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "Actually the sources linking the company to New York City is not acceptable per Wikipedia standards. The sources don't claim it was founded in Tel Aviv, nor Montreal. And once again, calling it an "Israeli company" is your interpretation."
   2. 19:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 19:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) to 19:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 19:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by IvanScrooge98 (talk): Man stop edit warring. Do NOT revert this again until we resolve this in the talk page. You are doing this in bad faith."
   2. 19:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "This is indesputable. What you had before wasn't."
   3. 19:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC) ""
7. 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by IvanScrooge98 (talk): Edit warrior. Stop. This is not a constructive edit, and just because it is sourced does not make it acceptable. This is bad faith and does not paint the full picture of the company."
8. 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1226519945 by Or-Shalem (talk): Edit warriors"
9. Consecutive edits made from 04:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) to 04:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
   1. 04:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "I did look at the talk page. It's still a dubious claim, given what the sources are stating. This is not objective. Undid revision 1226475555 by 20WattSphere (talk)"
   2. 04:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "there i hope this is an acceptable compromise for you. i contributed to the talk page for your convenience. I don't personally like the way the sentence I edited is worded "Israeli then-husband" is weird, but it's less objectionable then what was there before."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Moroccanoil."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User_talk:Or-Shalem#Moroccanoil
2. User_talk:Or-Shalem#May_2024
3. Talk:Moroccanoil

Comments:

• Please note that parts of the article that are edit warring on fall under the WP:ARBPIA restrictions (they have been made aware of this). M.Bitton (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Mypthegoat reported by User:Left guide (Result: Blocked indefinitely after an ignored 48-hour block)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Original addition
2. 1st revert
3. 2nd revert
4. 3rd revert
5. 4th revert

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This type of edit has been the subject of editorial controversy across multiple related articles in the NBA project, so there is open ongoing discussion at WT:NBA#Conference finals mvp to resolve the content dispute, which I mentioned in both my edit summary and the user's talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [3]

Comments:
User continues to edit-war in the NBA Conference Finals MVP award into the infobox even though they have been reverted by a total of three different editors. Left guide (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Then don’t revert the edit I made what’s so hard to not understand. I already made my explanation. The player has won the Conference Finals MVP and award should be included in Career Awards and Achievements part. I checked the talk page and consensus been saying yes it should be included too. Jaylen Brown has already that award in their bio too. I mean there’s a sentence which says for Luka Doncic in his wiki page that he won the award yesterday but we can’t show it on his career awards part. Make it make sense. Mypthegoat (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

ToBeFree or any other admin, can this be reviewed again for a possible second block? The user fresh off their first block has immediately returned to restoring the same exact edit they were blocked for edit-warring over. Left guide (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Not even an edit summary from them either. It doesn't seem they understand edit warring yet. —Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the notification, Left guide.  Done.
• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  Seems reasonable to have them request an unblock, given the other warnings on their page. —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2.26.151.114 reported by User:Austronesier (Result: Blocked from article for one month and alerted to CTOPS)

Page: Cushitic-speaking peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2.26.151.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC) "Stop removing cited content. This article is about Cushitic ethnic groups and where they inhabit. I see what you’re doing here"
2. 01:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC) "If we’re not going to use Somali Peninsula then this should not be removed either"
3. 01:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC) "This is valid too"
4. 00:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC) "Talk page. Stop removing cited sources. Somalis are the most prominent Cushitic ethnic group out of all the ethnic group in this article. There is a whole nation named after Somalia. The Wikipedia:Notability policy fully supports this too. You kept on removing this content the other day stating it was unsourced and now you don’t find it relevant? The academic sources are there"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cushitic-speaking people."
2. 03:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC) "/* June 2024 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Cushitic-speaking_peoples#Somalis,_Somalia.

Comments:

The IP editor has been edit-warring about this even though there is an ongoing discussion in Talk:Cushitic-speaking peoples about their proposed additions. They also accuse other editors who disagree with their POV of Anti-Somali sentiment which reinforces the impression that they are not willing to contribute in a collaborative way. Austronesier (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that some level of administrative action is needed: probably a page ban. The back-&-forths have been going on for twelve days now. The IP editor has only engaged others on the Talk page when their edits have been reverted, and has been unwilling to accept that others are engaging in good faith. At this point, I think a resolution through discussion is unlikely. Pathawi (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one month from the article. Since they had not been alerted to it being in a contentious topic area (HORN), I have also done that as well as put a CTOPS notice on the article talk page. For these reasons this will be a regular administrative action that can be appealed through the usual process and reversed by any other admin. Should this user attempt to evade this block, or continue this behavior after it expires, CTOPS should be invoked. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This is so absurd it’s almost funny. The article is about Cushitic ethnic groups and where they reside. By going through the conversations on the talkpage you’ll see it, even the edit summaries. It’s so hypocritical how the dispute went from “unsourced” to “irrelevant” when the sources were brought. @Cookiemonster1618 😂😂😂 2.26.151.114 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This is why you were blocked because your replies indicate that your ignorant of wikipedia's editing policies, despite multiple times me explaining it to you, that your edits are not relevant to this article. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Somalis are not relevant to an article about Cushitic ethnic groups? Visit these pages and learn about Somali DNA Cushitic ancestry & Haplogroup E-M215. Have a look at the map of where Cushitic ethnic groups are concentrated aswell please. Somalis are definitely not irrelevant. I assure you. 2.26.151.114 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the content of your edits, and everything to do with how you made them. When something is under discussion at the talk page, and you know you're right and the other user or users are obtuse and/or dumber than a wet rock, you leave the text in the article alone until the discussion is resolved, even if that text being in the article keeps you from sleeping well.

BTW, can we assume from your continued presence here that this declaration of yours is no longer operative? Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:George Voinescu reported by User:CanonNi (Result: Blocked for 60 hours)

Page: Maria-Ana Tupan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1226852838 by CanonNi (talk)If you violate the revert rule, you break the wikipedia rules. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect."
2. 06:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "If you violate the revert rule, you break the wikipedia rules. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect."
3. 06:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "If you violate the revert rule, you break the wikipedia rules. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect."
4. 06:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1226850514 by Theroadislong (talk)Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates (UV 0.1.5)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Message to CanonNi */ Reply"

Comments:

COI issues again. Bringing up this issue to a noticeboard for the third time, after COIN and ANI both failed. SPA removing the {{autobiography}} tag, possible sock of ForTupan (talk · contribs). '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

CanonNi, If you violate the revert rule, you break the wikipedia rules. Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. You can ask an administrator about this aspect. Stop vandalizing the pages and good faith contributions of other users. Stop manipulating administrators with false presumptions and complaints. You didn't respect my edits. I justified why I removed the tag. I acted according to the existing rules. George Voinescu (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You have a clear COI, and the issue is far from resolved. I didn't "violate the revert rule", you did, and that's why we're here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, administrators! Any user without a conflict of interest may remove a maintenance template if the issue has been resolved by someone else. I already checked the talk page. The major contributions come from a neutral male user from the city of Oradea (ForTupan). He has a name similar to the subject of the article (Maria-Ana Tupan), but has no personal connection to it. The article has been improved, the tone is neutral, balanced. The information has credible sources. The problem is different: The users "CanoNi" and "Theroadislong" have made a common front and repeatedly violate the rules of wikipedia. I ask that my actions and edits be respected. I made constructive changes, removed the article's problems, brought sources and information. After all this, I deleted the tags and justified my action. But it seems that they have a personal problem with the subject of the article and have a personal battle with thim in the discussions. These fights of theirs disrupt wikipedia. They take personal revenge on an article, to hit on the subject of the article. They use their Wikipedia functions to commit abuse. George Voinescu (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Not this again... '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Warning to administrators: the user Melcous makes a common front with The users "CanoNi" and "Theroadislong". The user Melcous deleted information from the article, saying that they had no sources, then tagged the page. It is bad intention. Now he came back and put another tag, to makes a common front with The users "CanoNi" and "Theroadislong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Voinescu (talk • contribs) 07:59, June 2, 2024 (UTC)

Fifth revert here [4]. Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

message to administrators. The users "CanoNi", "Theroadislong" and "Melcous" relabel the page one by one, to get my suspension. They want to shut my mouth for good, to vandalize that article without being disturbed. If you want to suspend me, please do so. I wanted you, the administrators, to see how these 3 users vandalize a page and take revenge on the subject of the article George Voinescu (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Kashmiri reported by User:2A04:4A43:4FCF:D943:D89A:4387:EBF1:C398 (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: Mian Muhammad Bakhsh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

• /64 range of reporter blocked by Drmies for 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:2804:D4B:9A7F:9900:39E8:697:C07B:C115 reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Leon Trotsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2804:D4B:9A7F:9900:39E8:697:C07B:C115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

User:IOHANNVSVERVS reported by User:Maradakia (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)

Page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:There_was_no_such_thing_as_Palestinians
User being reported:/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IOHANNVSVERVS

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

Comments:

I am new to trying to contribute to Wikipedia discussions and am finding it very confusing. I noticed today an article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_was_no_such_thing_as_Palestinians ) that has it's main article page locked, being a contentious topic, but which only presents a narrow and heavily biased and misleading view, without respect for the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view. I am unaware as a new contributor to what process might normally be involved in seeking to redress issues on Wikipedia, especially given that the main page is locked, but noticing a Talk page, it seemed the appropriate location to make a request for someone to edit the article, and I was not the first to comment on that Talk page noticing a lack of neutrality and the presence of a strong bias in the article. I commented on the Talk page attempting to raise my concern with the lack of a NPOV, with specifics. User IOHANNVSVERVS deleted my comment. I tried to put my request to correct the lack of NPOV back on the Talk page and added the comment explaining why saying: "The request on the Talk page associated with this article, seeking to address the required Neutral Point of View criteria, was was deleted by someone. Since the issue of lack of neutrality has not been addressed the request for correction is being un-deleted. undo Tag: Reverted". Afterwards I also saw a comment on the Talk page where someone mentioned an important and missing quotation which was responded to as though it wasn't relevant so I commented with the full quotation and a link to its original source, discussed its relevance to the article and contributed further examples of quotations that might address the bias of the article and lend it more fairness and neutrality. The result was to have my comment on that Talk discussion also deleted by IOHANNVSVERVS who then deleted/reverted my comments on the Talk page twice more in the span of a couple of hours, despite my asking them to stop doing so, as well as sending them the edit warring warning on their user talk page. I also noticed in looking at the user talk page of IOHANNVSVERVS that there are several other instances where issues arose with this user contributing to anti-Israel and anti-Jewish discussions specifically, which begins to look like a pattern of using Wikipedia as a weaponized propaganda platform. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IOHANNVSVERVS And additionally that the history on this user's talk page shows several other warnings about revisions. Before finishing trying to enter this complaint my edit from the Talk page was again reverted. The comment on the reversion suggests that it's not edit warring because as a new user I am only allowed to make edit requests, but that is exactly what my comment was that has now been deleted 4 times. I was requesting edit to address the lack of a neutral point of view. This Wikipedia article is serving as propaganda that shows only one point of view and both the absence of differing views and contempt for disagreement.

Did you read the edit summaries by IOHANNVSVERVS, Sean.hoyland, and LilianaUwU, all of whom reverted you? They explained it quite clearly, and there is a note on the talk page further explaining it: this article is under arbitration enforcement as it's a contentious topic. Consequently you need to be extended-confirmed to make talk page comments (or edit the article). Please see the notice on the talk page for more information. — Czello ^(music) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:Glide08 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: 1989 Polish parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

FeldmarschallGneisenau has already been reported and suspended for a week for edit-warring in this article. The target of the edit-warring is the vote figures; he removed them from the Infobox persistently, citing the fact they exceeded the adult population of Poland as a reason, while ignoring the fact that the electoral system used at the time is multiple non-transferable vote, a system which allowed a voter to have more than one vote.

• Revision as of 01:37, May 26, 2024, before the suspension, where the vote figures were removed from the infobox
• Revision as of 13:23, June 3, 2024, after the suspension, where the vote figures were removed from the infobox

Comments:
The edit war was over the formatting of the lede. I conceded that. My block over that has expired. It did not refer to reverting your changes in the infobox. And the WP is clear: any unsourced statements may be removed by editors at will. I am following Wikipedia Policy.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of the seven reverts listed in the initial report, only one (#6) concerned the lede. The remaining six (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #7) concerned vote figures in the infobox. Glide08 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Gulzarifchawjoan reported by User:Aintabli (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC) "In Kurdish"
2. 08:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Takab"
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC) to 07:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
   1. 07:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Takab In Kurdish"
   2. 07:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Takab"
   3. 07:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Takab In Kurdish"
4. 12:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC) "Takab In Kurdish"
5. 11:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC) "Takab In Kurdish"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Gulzarifchawjoan "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Gulzarif has also edit-warred on other pages such as Dehgolan, Shahin Dezh, Barya Khan, and so on. The edit-warring actually goes further back as the IPs who have made the exact same edits on these pages belong to the same user. Despite numerous warnings from multiple users, they have not attempted to discuss or provide sources for their additions. Aintabli (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

User:103.156.142.125 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result:IP blocked for 24 hours.)

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

User being reported: 103.156.142.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ StephenMacky1 Edit war may be from your side think again. Please don't consider anything personal. But whatsoever change is needed. Adipurush will not have any place in The Great Ramayana page. I have provided several links before too but none considered. I request you to remove Adipurush from this list."
2. 12:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "Undo changes. I request "StephenMacky1", "Joshua Jonathan", "NXcrypto" to not make any changes further here as this movie is not at all related to The Great Ramayana. Ref: "https://www.rediff.com/movies/review/adipurush-is-not-ramayan/20230620.htm""
3. 06:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ आदिपुरुष महान रामायण का हिस्सा नहीं है। आदिपुरुष ने महान रामायण और हिंदू धर्म का मज़ाक उड़ाया है। आदिपुरुष ने बहुत विवाद पैदा किया है और हिंदू लोगों की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाई है। Person holding indian citizenship can make changes to this article. I suppose some outside the indian region are making undo changes on this article. Kindly refer original Ramayana with research on the topic whether Adipurush to be considered as a part of Ramayana or not. Adipurush is not a part of Ramayana"
4. 05:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ आदिपुरुष महान रामायण का हिस्सा नहीं है। आदिपुरुष ने महान रामायण और हिंदू धर्म का मज़ाक उड़ाया है। आदिपुरुष ने बहुत विवाद पैदा किया है और हिंदू लोगों की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाई है।"
5. 04:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ Adipurush is a controversial film in India region. And it is not a part of Ramayana. I kindly request the authorities to remove this name from the list."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ramayana."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor has made more than three reverts by now, despite being reverted by multiple editors. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User:YZDMAC reported by User:Woodensuperman (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Template:Foreign relations of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YZDMAC (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]
4. [28]
5. [29]
6. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [33]

Comments:
User has continually been reverting removal of flags in navboxes (which go against MOS:FLAG) by myself and others on this and other pages, pretty much the only thing they have done since they joined. --woodensuperman 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Look. Wooden Superman you have absolutely no right to remove the flags on Foreign relations template. The flags help people identify a specific country. Mr. WoodenSuperman has no clue what he is talking about. Period. YZDMAC (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE, the countries are identified by the name of the country, not the flag. --woodensuperman 14:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t explain why they are on Foreign relations templates. On Foreign relations they are easy to identify. So you don’t know what you are talking about Wooden Superman. That’s it for now. YZDMAC (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

They shouldn't be in navboxes, per MOS:FLAG, WP:NAVDECOR, etc., etc. That is why myself and other editors have removed them. --woodensuperman 14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Has no interest in working collaboratively [34]. Wikipedia not for them.Moxy🍁 15:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)