Pages: List of United States over-the-air television networks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 30 Minutes (TV program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.74.140.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1277446269; Special:Diff/1277452428

Diffs of the user's reverts, first page:

1. Special:Diff/1277765773
2. Special:Diff/1277778015

Diffs of the user's reverts, second page:

1. Special:Diff/1277782841

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1277766831

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP has received several warnings in the past but never responded. I think my edit comments were clear enough, but the IP apparently ignores them as well.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1277782483

Comments:

The IP has received several warnings (previously for disruption and vandalism, now for edit warring) but never responded. I think my edit comments were clear enough, but the IP apparently ignores them as well.

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) 20:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, but I think this is a case for WP:IAR. Or rather: We shouldn't apply the rules too diligently. It's an IP that received several warnings on its talk page and never responded. If the IP does the same edit on List of United States over-the-air television networks again in a day or two, it should be blocked. Anything else would be waste of our time. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. The IP reverted again, and now also started an edit-war on another page. Can we PLEASE just stop this and block the IP? Sure, it's technically not 3RR, but what else can we do? Post yet another warning on the IP's talk page? That's a waste of time. Why do I have to spend so much time just to stop this obviously disruptive IP? — Chrisahn (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2025 (UT

Blocked – for a period of 10 years @Chrisahn: Upon further review I have blocked the user for the next decade (the IP, associated with a school district on Long Island (surprise!) came off a 5-year block a couple of years ago, the most recent of a long series of ever-escalated blocks, so this was the obvious next step as we cannot block IPs indefinitely). Due to the long block, most of the previous warnings and notices had been removed from the talk page per the notice at the top, so neither of us were aware of the IP's history. Had I been (and this is not your fault) at the time I reviewed your report, I would have done what I just did. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User being reported: BauhausFan89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Germans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1270709550
2. Special:Diff/1273912149
3. Special:Diff/1274243241
4. Special:Diff/1277653445

I started a discussion at Talk:Germans#Language_and_diaspora in which another user and myself both opposed BauhausFan89's addition of the map (as well as other additions by them). They were edit warring before at

Page: Culture of Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1270419075
2. Special:Diff/1270882721
3. Special:Diff/1271109701
4. Special:Diff/1273823235

Discussion started on talk page by me, Talk:Culture_of_Germany#Pictures_of_the_article, ending in a warning by me for edit warring, Special:Diff/1271311955, warning on user's talk page: Special:Diff/1273851375

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1277790079

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but slow edit warring on at least two pages. Please note that they have been warned recently by another user for edit warring (Special:Diff/1275518787) and that three different users (one of them myself) have warned them for marking edits as "minor" on their user's page. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had really hoped this would stop... but it's been going on since at least July of last year on the Telecomm article alone. It took a firmly worded notif to get them to take the issue to the talk page, after repeatedly ignoring input from several other users to do so.--Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 20:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially blocked – for a period of 1 month ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Alexis Kougias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A02:587:CC21:8C00:A518:FB8D:F504:3C59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 07:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 07:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 07:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 07:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
6. 07:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "born 23 January 1951"
7. Consecutive edits made from 06:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC) to 06:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
   1. 06:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
8. 06:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "born 23 January 1951 oxi 4 November 1951"
9. 05:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alexis Kougias."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "/* Birthdate */ new section"

Comments:

Appears to be range; see User:2A02:587:CC21:8C00:43AE:4E7:13E9:FA33 for same edit after 3RR warning. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 07:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also User:2A02:587:CC21:8C00::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & 2a02:587:cc21:8c00:43ae:4e7:13e9:fa33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Also reported at wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Report concerning 2a02:587:cc21:8c00:a518:fb8d:f504:3c59.

I am an involved admin. Peaceray (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected In full for three days. The IP has provided sources; it should be worked out on the talk page as to whether they are reliable and whether the birth date they give should be taken as the more accurate one. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sahaja Yoga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "Removing content that is based on wrong advertisements by few people and is hurting the feelings of thousands of practitioners. Sahajayoga is scientifically backed and is practised in more than140 countries."
2. 08:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "Removing content that is based on wrong advertisements by few people and is hurting the feelings of thousands of practitioners. Sahajayoga is scientifically backed and is practised in more than140 countries."
3. 08:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "removed unauthentic information that has hurt feelings of many believer"
4. 10:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC) "Sahaja Yoga is not a religion. Its a meditation techniques practiced in more than 140 countries. Please stop spreading nuisance without proper knowledge. Here are some of the authentic resources from different countries giving the details. 1) [1]https://us.sahajayoga.org/ 2) [2]https://www.sahajayoga.com.au/ 3) [3]https://www.sahajay"
5. 10:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1277724300 by Bon courage (talk)"
6. 09:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC) "Sahaja Yoga is not a religion. Its a meditation techniques practiced in more than 140 countries. Please stop spreading nuisance without proper knowledge. Here are some of the authentic resources from different countries giving the details. 1) [4]https://us.sahajayoga.org/ 2) [5]https://www.sahajayoga.com.au/ 3) [6]https://www.sahajay"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sahaja Yoga."
2. 09:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Sahaja Yoga."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Four edits changing "religion" or "religious movement" to "meditation technique" in the first sentence, two blanking a lead sentence (supported in the body by sources, and discussed at length on talk) about some characterising the group as a cult. The user was warned for edit warring the same issues last November.

Since joining Wikipedia last year, 24 of their 26 edits have been edit warring or otherwise disrupting Sahaja Yoga content. Belbury (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

User being reported: User:EF5

Diffs of the users reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1277942652

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1277942573

Comments: Also made personal attacks against me for my views. You can factor that in when making the block. Thank you.

Comment: Not edit warring, I've only reverted their disrputive noms twice; others have as well. Their nominations are clearly biased, disruptive and transphobic. E_F⁵ 16:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have. My nomination is in good faith. You did not take the time to discuss. This is blatant edit warring under the policy. 192.184.150.127 (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

192.184.150.127, please read WP:3RR. It is not edit warring till I revert three times. Suggest a BOOMERANG. — E_F⁵ 16:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not always true ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, really? I always thought 3+ reverts = edit warring, but anything below is fine (obviously excluding WP:1RR, which isn't the case here). :) — E_F⁵ 21:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first off, there's the exemptions at 3RRNO ... not very wide, but they're there. But also there's slow-motion edit warring, where people keep making the same reverts over a period of days. And then there's gaming ... making just three reverts in 24 hours, waiting, then doing it again.

I might also consider it edit warring when someone keeps reverting during a talk discussion in violation of WP:STATUSQUO regardless of how often that happens.

As noted at WP:EW: "it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."

And, also:" The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, thanks for sharing. I'll keep that in mind when reverting from now on. — E_F⁵ 22:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend WP:BOOMERANG, IP couldn’t be more blatant of a troll if they tried. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EF5 SFR’s blocked them 31 hours for vandalism, so thankfully we’re done for now. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Transphobia sucks. E_F⁵ 16:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Kubo and the Two Strings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Camsteerie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]
6. [13]
7. [14]
8. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]

Comments: User is repeatedly attempting to include the Japanese terms "netsuke" and "shamisen" (and associated Japanese characters) throughout the article, including the lede. This is original research; per the talk page, these terms are not used in the film itself. I attempted a compromise by including "netsuke" with a link [19], then in a footnote [20], despite there being no valid reason for its inclusion. This was rejected.

A couple of complications here. The user has admitted to editing while logged out [21], which is why the IP editor is included in the above reverts. Also, an editor with a suspiciously similar username to mine has entered the fray: [22]. I am unconnected to this account.

• interactions both ways here need to be examined. There's another editor user:Larry Wom which only was just created to revert some of the changes by Camsteerie, as well as on talk page. Camsteerie at least explained the edits from a IP (browser settings logged them off). This is not in support of what Camsteerie was trying to add (i've discussed the issue on the talk page), but the edits by Barry and this Larry are highly suspicious and may warrant SPI. Masem (t) 17:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already pointed this out above, and I've already mentioned to you that SPI is welcome. I have my suspicions as to who is behind this account and if a CU reveals that Larry Mow happens to be associated with an IP address in Colombia, they would be confirmed. Barry Wom (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem

@Barry Wom

As it does not seem to be have lodged, and as Barry Wom is well aware of the edit warring rules, I apply that Barry Wom is investigated for not just violating Wikipedia rules on edit warring, but also of sock puppetry in operating as a second newly opened account of Larry Mow to circumvent WP:3RR. Camsteerie (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that an editor who has been here for 15+ years and who has accumulated nearly 15,000 edits is going to create a blatantly obvious sock account to continue edit warring? I've blocked it as an obvious jo-job impersonation account.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: the user is continuing to edit while logged out, despite warnings [23].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barry Wom (talk • contribs) .

Camsteerie has explained how they keep getting logged out and admitted to editing as an IP due to that. Masem (t) 19:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the Larry Mow is actually a "jo-job impersonation" account - whatever that is, new term to me, but I guess a bot or a malicious disruptor trying to divert attention by throwing suspicion to another editor. If Barry Wom is then shown to be innocent of sock puppetry here, then please accept my apologies. Camsteerie (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the socking element of this report and will leave the edit warring review to another admin.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week The edit warring is bad enough, the logged-out editing is worse, and to me the high probability that the "Larry Mow" account was created as a joe job (something I have always known was possible but until now, in 20 years here, had never actually seen happen) add up to enough egregious misbehavior as to demand a longer block than usual. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theliberian24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1277873164

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1277972007
2. Special:Diff/1277976293, note personal attack in the edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:PermaLink/1277974618

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Asia/Archive_1#Russia_is_a_European_country, which is an old discussion, but there's been a longstanding editing consensus since then in favor of including Russia, and the onus is definitely on editors pushing for its removal to make the case at this point in time.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1277979205

Comments:
Note that this page is under a 1RR sanction, so the second revert is already a red-line violation. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Rohan Mehra (born 1990) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rohan4747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 16:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 14:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 07:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC) to 07:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
   1. 07:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 06:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC) to 06:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
   1. 06:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC) "This is my page. I am Rohan Mehra . Kindly don’t interrupt .This is the updated version of my work"
   2. 06:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC) "This is my page. I am Rohan Mehra . Kindly don’t interrupt .This is the updated version of my work"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Ownership of articles on Rohan Mehra (born 1990)."
2. 16:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Rohan Mehra (born 1990)."
3. 16:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC) "/* Managing a conflict of interest */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User claims to be the article subject, asserts ownership of the article, and has ignored all warnings. Jfire (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Indefinitely pblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Akan language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bono dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bono people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Twi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bosomba Amosah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple comments on Bosomba's talk page, such as [25], now deleted; plus discussions at Talk:Twi etc

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:

@Austronesier: and I have reverted Bosomba multiple times for the same edits on the same articles, for failing to respect his own sources, explaining that we need to follow those sources, and we've gotten thanks from other editors for doing so. Bosomba has conceded a few points, but it's like pulling teeth. He has provided a couple of nice sources in Dolphyne, and I now use those sources almost exclusively for my edits, and because of this I have abandoned some of my earlier positions, which were based on less reliable sources. Yet Bosomba only follows Dolphyne where she agrees with him, and ignores her where she doesn't. For example, he insists that Bono is a literary dialect of Akan even though Dolphyne says it isn't even written, and AFAICT he has provided no sources that the situation has changed since she wrote [which was decades ago; the situation could easily have changed]. He also insists that Bono is a single dialect; Dolphyne says that the 'Bono dialect' is actually a cluster of dialects, with as much internal diversity as other clusters of Akan dialects that have individual identities, that is, are considered to be separate dialects. Bosomba's argument is that since Dolphyne calls it the 'Bono dialect' before going on to explain that it's actually a dialect cluster, 'dialect' takes precedence and we need to follow that. I don't know if that's obstinacy or incompetence, but it's a refusal to follow his own sources. [There are other inaccuracies that he repeatedly restores with his reverts, but I don't know which are intentional.] The other major contention is that Twi is named afteer a Bono king named Twi. Bosomba has provided two sources. One does not say what he says it does, and he adamantly refuses to provide a quotation from it that would support his position. [In case we both missed where it supports him.] The other source he does quote from, but neither of us have access to it, and given Bosomba's apparent incompetence, we don't trust that he's quoting it accurately -- especially since he insists on keeping the first source despite it failing verification. There are other issues, such as the definition/scope of the name 'Twi', where he will only accept one definition, but I haven't had the time to delve into the sources for that.

— kwami (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined - this report should be taken to WP:ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? This is the edit-warring page for ANI, but I'll move it to the main page — kwami (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you didn't post any diffs, for one things. And when you then post a wall o' text like that, you're telling us the issue is complex enough to be better reviewed at AN/I (Compare this to all the other reports here). Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Illit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helpinghandsinhands (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
2. Diff
3. Diff
4. Diff
5. Diff
6. Diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff

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

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

Comments:
Persistent addition of WP:NOTPROMO, non-WP:NPOV, non-WP:MOS, non-WP:RS materials for 5 times straight despite multiple editors reverted such materials. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sima Kotecha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Melody Concerto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk page queries: [31], [32], [33], [34]
• The user deleted them all without response: [35], [36], [37], [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39]

Comments:

A few days ago, I happened to read Sima Kotecha, and found so many grammar errors that the article was almost unreadable. I fixed them all. Searching in the article's history, they had all been introduced by one now-banned editor in a likely act of vandalism.

For no apparent reason, the editor I am reporting has repeatedly restored all the errors I fixed to the article. They have given no explanation for their actions in edit summaries, and have simply deleted my posts when I asked them why. They have not been content to simply revert my edits; they have also sought to get the article protected with a shockingly dishonest report ([40]), and unfortunately an administrator obliged. So, the article is once again in a shocking and unreadable state. I suggest that significant action needs to be taken against the user I am reporting for their totally pointless edit warring, deliberate harm to the article's quality, and bad faith abuse of Wikipedia tools and processes. 2A00:23C8:D30D:7C00:64ED:3C90:5AB4:BE56 (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]