13:35, 6 July 2025 (UTC) "I’ll explain to you: real LEGO themes and franchises that appear in LEGO themes are mixed up, for example, LEGO Back to the Future is not a theme: two sets were released of this franchise, a LEGO CUUSOO set in 2013 and 10300 BTTF Time Machine in 2022. The case of LEGO The Lord of the Rings is similar: it was listed as current because of 10316 Rivendell, released in 2023, but that’s LEGO Icons; this franchise had sets as a separate theme around 2012, therefore being a discontinued theme."
Then talk about it, Soetermans, not just undo the things that were done. You can only write in scornful way, but explaining anything is really far away from you. I suspect you don’t know anything about LEGO.Bricktoy123 (talk)15:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
It would be beneficial ifyou started talking. I do not consider myself "scornful" because you are edit warring. It's okay that you're new and inexperienced, but after receiving several messages and warnings in such a small time, you should've figured out you're going at it the wrong way. Like right now, that you suspect I know nothing about Lego isn't helping. It's Lego and not LEGO as far as Wikipedia is concerned, which you've been told already, but you also keep adding in.soetermans.↑↑↓↓←→←→ B ATALK15:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Are you talking about Lego being fully capitalised? In my edits, I write them Lego. Anyway, I find it a really silly thing as it’s LEGO, actually.Bricktoy123 (talk)15:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
I don’t understand and really hate this style you (Soetermans, SleepyRedHair and MrOllie) do. Many improvements are made on the articles – LEGO Architecture, LEGO Art, LEGO BrickHeadz, LEGO Icons, LEGO Ideas, List of LEGO themes –, but you revert them and leave them lose because you don’t like the style (which is the exact one, actually) in which I edited the texts. If you wouldn’t be silly, you would edit the articles normally and not just revert them.Bricktoy123 (talk)15:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
What? I think you were the first one to undo my edits and edit war, when I was just updating the stats to the latest one as published by government? See the edit history again perhaps?155.69.182.1 (talk)05:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Both of these users were warned about edit warringin June. I've fully protected the article for two weeks (HundenvonPenang requested page protection due toPersistent disruptive editing and edit-warring from IP, replacing prose with one that is incorrect grammatically. in addition to making this report), but I'm doubtful that action will be sufficient.Daniel Quinlan (talk)07:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[6]
Comments:
Hello. There has been an ongoing disagreement over the wording of the lead section.
After reverting a bold edit with a descriptive edit summary, this user reinstated their version without initiating discussion on the talk page, which is not in line with BRD.
To avoid participating in an edit war, I started two extended talk page topics, and later I participated actively on it.
After discussion for about 3 days, and without consensus, I reverted back (mentioning this in the edit summary). Now, the user reinstated their contested version again.
Additionally, in an edit summary and on the talk page, this user has made comments that might be considered non-collaborative:
Comment 1: "This is WP:OWN territory to disregard others' edits".
For both comments, I was reminding you about the policies ofWP:OWN andWP:BADREVERT. Your constructive edits and knowledge on the topic are appreciated, but reverting my edits to dispute every small detail isn't a good way to facilitate conversation. I appreciate reversions of my good faith edits with reason, but this is on a level beyond what I consider reasonable. It's frustrating to edit this particular page when all of my edits are scrutinized by minute detail, instead of editors improving on each other's edits for the benefit of Wikipedia.Go D. Usopp(talk)08:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Page protected In full. For a week. Because I had to do this before a little over a month ago. And since we don't like to do this too much, if you come back here with another request in about the same amount of time I will just block both of you from the page indefinitely. I don't want that and neither do you. Get some other people involved in this discussion. Please.Daniel Case (talk)22:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hours Ordinarily, I'd have declined this as not violating 3RR.But it turns out that I have previously blocked this IP over a year and a half ago for disruption in the same topic area (Korean TV). I can only conclude they did not learn enough from that experience.Daniel Case (talk)22:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
UserMolikog has repeatedly reverted content on the articleAdult human female without engaging in meaningful discussion or attempting to reach a consensus. This constitutes a violation of thethree-revert rule (3RR) and is a clear case ofedit warring.
Despite efforts by other editors to discuss and resolve content disputes, Molikog has consistently reverted between conflicting versions of the article, disregarding the collaborative editing process. This disruption undermines the work of others and prevents productive discussions about the article's content.
Specific issues:
Molikog has reintroduced content that was previously removed following discussion and consensus, without providing adequate justification or engaging in any further dialogue on the article's talk page.
This repetitive pattern of reverting without consensus creates a cycle of undoing progress and impedes the editing process.
Request:
I respectfully request that the administrators review the diffs provided and take appropriate action againstMolikog for edit warring. They have violated thethree-revert rule (3RR) and their actions are disruptive to the collaborative process on this article.A quick check on the edit history shows a very clear pattern of disruptive behavior on Wikipedia articles and starting Edit Wars on purpose with other Wikipedia editors.KangRay (talk)21:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
1 edit today. 1 edit yesterday. Almost a month to find the 3rd edit...so it doesn't look like they have, recently at least, violated 3RR on that article. --Onorem (talk)21:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Kindly take a look at the edit history ofMolikog and the numerous Edit warring he has initiated that has lead to numerous Talk pages being opened about his disruptive behavior that is becoming a bother to other Editors ...for example
Using an AI to write a report about edit warring is a bad idea;has reintroduced content that was previously removed is a factually incorrect description of content removals. Also, none of the links above are diffs; they all point to a specific revision without actually showing a difference.~ ToBeFree (talk)09:40, 9 July 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 completediffs.~ ToBeFree (talk)09:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[18]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [to be added]
Comments: I attempted to improve the Samma dynasty article by including a third reliable source after a previous soucre was contested. Despite posting reasoning on the article's talk page, both users reverted my edits without engaging in discussion. I resctfully request admin review for possible edit warring and failure to follow WP:BRD.Veritasphere (talk)17:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I have reverted your edits once only! I couldn't see any consensus on the article talk page! Veritasphere, you could have given some time to Sir Calculus to respond, but you engaged in edit warring instead. Thanks.Ekdalian (talk)18:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
In theKalhora dynasty article, the user removed sourced content regarding the use of Persian as the official language by Kalhora rulers and replaced it with a reference to Humera Naz, a source of unclear academic standing. This is problematic, especially becauseGhulam Muhammad Lakho, a well-established historian, has explicitly written in his published works and also stated in an academic seminar۔[1] that Persian was indeed the administrative or court language of the Kalhora dynasty.
^"Researchers call for collecting Kalhora era Persian work".Dawn. 29 January 2006.Prof Ghulam Mohammad Lakho said poets and writers coming from Iran had done a splendid job in the promotion of Persian literary works in Sindh. He said thatPersian was the official language of Kalhoras' courts which also encouraged new writers and poets as well, and that's why the personalities like Mohsin Thatvi, Qane, Mohammad Panah Reja and Mirza Ghulam Ali emerged on the literary and educational scene of Sindh.
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Even if we consider the two editors to betag-teaming. I remind you all to stick to the talk page,preserve the status quo, and consider finding ways to bring more editors into the discussion.Daniel Case (talk)02:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[30][31]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[32]
Comments:
Hammelsmith has repeatedly reinserted challenged content across two protected and contentious articles related to Michael Jackson, despite multiple reverts by other editors and without establishing consensus on the talk page. This behavior violatesWP:EDITWAR and is especially problematic underWP:DS (discretionary sanctions), which apply to these biographies and sensitive legal topics.
The user has made at least 9 reinsertions of similar material across two pages within 48 hours, ignoring theWP:BRD cycle and escalating the dispute. Several reverts were accompanied by edit summaries from other editors explicitly warning against edit warring. The user continues to reframe and reinsert the same disputed claims without waiting for consensus.
If I have done something wrong, I sincerely apologize. All I can say is that I honestly do thoroughly check the sources against the content before I delete something that is just not written in the sources, as I did withthis edit. I checked the Ebert source & the Halperin source. Neither source said "The DA and the sheriff's photographer stated that the description was accurate, but the jurors felt that the photos did not match the description." I even checked the internet before I made my edit.I was just upset when Israell added the sentence back stating it was in the sources when it just wasn't.
I also noticed some non-NPOV edits over a week ago, on some MJ-related pages, likethis edit. Whenever I remove some words or phrasing I always give proper Wiki policy justification as to why - my edits are not frivolous.
I also had a long time on the MJ Talk page today which started withthis edit which was intended to be a neutral, non-POV pushing edit. I really do try to engage civilly with editors - but some threats and aspersions do come my way at times.
I think Israell means well, but she sometimes makes very long edits on the Talk likethis & I don't want to have a Forum discussion. I prefer to just agree to disagree with her viewpoints and that seems to incur some wrath, which is what inevitably happens on Talk pages.
I hope I haven't been disruptive, because I like contributing to pages, but if I need to become more familiar with the policies, I'm certainly willing to learn and listen.Hammelsmith (talk)05:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Frankly,this is not "very long" or even "long" at all. My replies are pertinent to the points raised and only pertain to the article.
I even stated in thisedit that the point of that article is not to serve as a discourse on sexual assault when certain users began to use the talk page as a forum, strongly implying that that civil settlement was an indication of guilt.
TruthGuardians had to make a muchlonger edit in order to explain to certain editors that the Talk page cannot be used as a forum, that reliable sources and consensus are needed, and that "repeated insinuations that a settlement is tantamount to an admission of guilt are not only inaccurate but violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.
Hammelsmith has repeatedly ignoredwarnings not to ping a string of editors that are either uninvolved in the discussion or haven't been active on Wikipedia for years. Tbhotch, for instance,asked Hammelsmith to stop summoning them, but Hammelsmith kept at it.Israell (talk)08:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I had noticed that a Robert Christgau paragraph had been removed from the MJ page on November 8th so I restored it with my justification summaryhere. That paragraph had been on the page for many years, but of course, Israell just likes to revert my edits. So I had to take the matter to the Talk page. The editor who inadvertently removed the paragraph supported restoring ithere andhere. But, of course, Israell just reverted it again, which I found pretty strange. I only ask for voluntary editor contributions to resolve a Talk page matter faster & I have never ever asked anybody to vote in my favour.
I believe that Israell is a well meaning person, but it is really exhausting when she keeps addressing me personally asking me to just agree with her. Like thisedit. I find it strange that she can't accept that I don't want to debate our different opinions with each other, only the appropriateness of the sources. Israell does not have to like me, just I wish she would take it easy with the hostility. I am willing to engage with her regarding my judgments behind edits, but there is no use discussing personal perspectives because that is rarely resolved on a Talk page.
I'm just going to speak frankly and say that Israell want to get rid of me because she wants to scrub the MJ pages of anything that would make his behaviour questionable, like with thisedit to the 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations page. I had checked the sources on the page for a particular statement and it failed the check, as I saidhere. Now she wants to completely delete Bill Dworin's statementhere, convinced it is part of a conspiracy theory. To be honest, I don't always enjoys having debates with editors determined to rally to preserve Michael Jackson's good name, but I do it for the sake of keeping some balance and encyclopedia integrity. Frankly, Israell seems convinced that every edit I make on an MJ page is in the service of evil. It's just not so. I'm familiar with some newsworthy information and I try to help with the articles if I can, and I'm willing to engage civilly with all the editors.
I will say again that if I have done something wrong in terms of engaging with page edits or other editors, I certainly apologize most sincerely. I hope it doesn't affect the quality of the articles, and obviously, it was never ever my intention to incur so much ire from Israell. I will take this time as an opportunity to learn more mindfulness while editing before I approach the problematic pages.Hammelsmith (talk)15:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I kindly invite the administrator who'll investigate this to have a look at the Michael Jackson talk page discussion.
Several editors have lengthily explained why the Robert Christgau quote is not only inappropriate (filled with terms like "weirdo" and "grotesque" without even explaining thereasoning behind those terms) but also too long!
Never17 explained in detailwhy that quote from Dworin is not admissible, and Truth Guardians asked Hammelsmith to please justify, per Wikipedia's policy, the addition of that quote by Dworin.
And no, I have never "personally" (on a talk page at that) demanded that Hammelsmith agree with me; Hammelsmith was repeated asked byseveral editors to cooperate and stop edit warring.Israell (talk)16:48, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I think I just have the impression that your version of "cooperate" means "agree with us", "rally towards us". It is acceptable for encyclopedias to include quotations from well-known music critics and "she said, then he said" newsworthy statements. My edits are honestly not about warring, but about maintaining an impartial WikiVoice and neutrality.Hammelsmith (talk)16:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
The crux of the matter is that you've been arguing with several editors and engaging in edit warring for several days. Your edit warring is the only pertinent matter here, and you are now assuming bad faith. I have nothing more to add.Israell (talk)17:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Despite multiple warnings, both in edit summaries and on their talk page, Hammelsmith has continued to engage in edit warring across two high-profile and contentious articles: 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and Michael Jackson. They were specifically instructed to bring any disputed content to the talk page rather than continuing to revert or reinsert challenged material. While engaging on the talk page is encouraged, it is not a justification to continue reverting in the meantime, especially not repeatedly and across multiple sections of the article with the exact same disputed content.
Hammelsmith was explicitly informed that if a consensus could not be reached, the article should remain at the last stable version, per Wikipedia policy on disputed content (seeWP:STATUSQUO andWP:BRD). Yet they chose to ignore this, reintroducing similar or identical content nine times within less than 24 hours, sometimes making minor tweaks to evade scrutiny but clearly violating the spirit and letter ofWP:3RR andWP:EW.
Wikipedia’s editorial process is not based on individual conviction or repeated reassertion of a viewpoint, but on verifiability, reliable sourcing, consensus, and adherence to community norms. There is never an excuse for edit warring. Disagreements over sourcing or interpretation must be resolved collaboratively, not through persistence or attrition.
This case is further exacerbated by the fact that the articles fall under Discretionary Sanctions due to their association with being one of Wikipedia's most viewed pages of all time, living persons and legal issues. Editors are held to a higher standard in these areas, and repeated disruption in such topics justifies administrative intervention.
We appreciate Hammelsmith’s expressed willingness to learn. However, continued disruption, even if done in good faith, cannot be allowed to undermine Wikipedia’s collaborative editing model. A temporary editing restriction may be necessary to restore stability and enforce editorial norms.TruthGuardians (talk)17:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
It's no surprise that TruthGuardians wishes to air his personal grievances with me too. I guess to them, I represent the worst of the worst. Either because I must personally believe all the reliable sources that I think should be added to pages (I don't believe all the sources necessarily), or because I won't be intimidated by them. Their version of resolving matters "collaboratively" often tends to mean "agree with how I want to rewrite it". I feel I am a collaborator, and I'm certainly not a pushover. It just bothers me when I see Wiki being used to push a certain narrative and to rage incessantly against any dissenting voices.Hammelsmith (talk)18:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
This comment is inappropriate for ANI. Your remarks violateWP:NPA by making personal accusations, suggesting that I am “raging incessantly,” pushing a narrative, or trying to intimidate dissenting voices. This framing is not only inaccurate but inflammatory. PerWP:FOC, discussions, especially at ANI, must be centered on conduct and content, not personal grievances or assumptions about motives. I’ve participated in this dispute with reference to policy and reliable sourcing, not emotion. Editors are encouraged to disagree, but accusations of bad faith are disruptive and unproductive. I respectfully ask that we return the focus to conduct and policy.TruthGuardians (talk)18:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
If I am mistaken, then so be it, and I apologize if you were offended by that. My opinion happens to be that is that this is about rage.Hammelsmith (talk)18:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Declined This seems to be more complicated than the usual edit-warring allegations. I think you'd all be better off taking this to AN/I.Daniel Case (talk)02:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[66]Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[67]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[68]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[69]
Comments: I'm sorry about the mess here, I'm not sure how to use this form. The disruptive user goes by multiple addresses. All I'm trying to do is to keep the article (mostly my creation) clean, but they persistently revert and make bad edits.Beatpoet (talk)12:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Well there is a confusion that, one of the edits that– robertsky did was just for one category, and also for one ceremony, which has not been very consistant for each and every year, why would people cannot help to improve the rest of the page, while just to get warred into a specific section? (Unknown152438 (talk)18:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC))
Issue is related toMOS:HEADINGS where non-proper nouns are to be in sentence case, further MOS issue is also found atWP:NOCHARACTERS whereFor ease of reading and to reduce redundancy, characters should generally not be included for names or terms that have their own articles. Readers who wish to see the native representation should be able to find it on the linked article. I have tried to reasoned with @Unknown152438 on their talk page, but they just don't get it.– robertsky (talk)18:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I haven’t seen any significant changes. Therefore, once I goes online on Wikipedia, it will likely revert back to its original state that last I edited. (Unknown152438 (talk)19:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC))
huh. please don't revert without reviewing the MOS. There are multiple issues raised already, not just HEADINGS; AMP; Chinese characters, etc.– robertsky (talk)19:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
I like to add that Unknown152438 frequently ignored MOS (seeTalk:Star Awards) and like to useother stuff exists. Looking atUser talk:Unknown152438#July 2025,@Robertsky Just Change everything that you can understand, you are definitely not helping in this point. If you are talking aboutWikipedia:Manual of Style, the styling is not created by me, and this should not be an argument for this. It is what it is, similar and consistence as last year. The End., is the latest example of ignoring MOS, insisting of other stuff exist so ignoring MOS is correct. Unknown152438 has severeWP:OWN issues, seeedit summary here.
Full disclosure here : I had been previously hauled here by Unknown152438 for edit warring andthe case went stale. I believe at this point of time, this is a net waste of administrators' (robertsky and other admins as well) time and other editors' time,competence is required in understanding MOS.~ JASWE (talk)01:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
01:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1299711541 byObjective3000 (talk) - per talk page discussion and previous edit summary, this revert is not compliant with Wikipedia policy, and consensus is not required to place this template. Consensus must exist for the removal of the template, and clearly such consensus does not exist. Specific and well-elaborated reasoning and examples are provided in the talk page."
22:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC) "Re-added POV cleanup template but not Update template, which was addressed on talk page. POV issues have not received good-faith discussion yet and are pervasive - see talk page section and replies. Other previous content changes were not repeated, I have ONLY added the template."
Commenting on this, diff 4 is not a revert, it was the initial edit I made which was reverted. It also had a talk page entry. Diff 3 was my first revert, with an accompanying talk page post - this was then re-reverted, at which point the "warning" diff was posted to my talk page (for a single revert). There was a single revert at the time of warning, with no attempt to engage in discussion by the other party (re-reverted with no talk page post, just the warning). Diff 2 is not a revert, and I did not make any of the content changes from earlier, I added a POV template following extensive discussion. Diff 1 is a revert that re-adds that template, again with no content changes. If action is justified per 1RR that's fine with me and I have no disagreements, but I would like attention placed on what I perceive to be bad-faith use of WP:EW to stifle carefully-debated and well-supported opposing opinions.Just-a-can-of-beans (talk)02:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As noted, the "edit reverted to" cannot be one of the possibly offending reverts. However, do tread carefully here ... you're ina contentious topic area.Daniel Case (talk)02:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Can of Beans,WP:3RR statesAn edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. You've performed three reverts. While that may not meet the threshhold for this noticeboard, per Daniel above you should tread carefully.TarnishedPathtalk02:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
1)My first edit was about removing thelinkEternity C, referring tothis edit (in summary:got rid of red links that aren't likely to be wikipedia articles). I added the full sentence; that was wrong because it was already covered under 'Armed conflicts and attacks'.
2) So “Introduction tocontentious topics” is in fact not completely true.
@Daniel Case the content being reverted is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which permits only one revert in a 24 hour period instead of three. IPs are also not allowed to edit in this area.XYZ1233212 (talk)03:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I have thus put the article under indefinite extended-confirmed protection and placed all the appropriate notices, notices that weren't there for the IP to see when these edits were made. It is also now listed at CTOPS.Daniel Case (talk)04:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
02:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC) "Added a non promotional fact about another media outlets’ review which is no more promotional or an advertisement than are any of the other factual notations of other outlets’ reviews. DO NOT REVERT!"
00:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC) "film)Added a non promotional fact about another media outlets’ review which is no more promotional or an advertisement than are any of the other factual notations of other outlets’ reviews. DO NOT REVERT!"
23:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC) "Added one more media outlet’s comments on the show. It is not an advertisement or a promotion any more than are any of the other notations of other outlets’ comments. Do not revert!"
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Again the reporter has mistakenly counted the edit reverted to among the reverts. However there is cause for concern here. The editor's promise to sock if blocked means that the page should be semi-protected if they are.Daniel Case (talk)02:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
HiDaniel Case, they've already hit 4 reverts onIronheart. But this feels unnecessarily bureaucratic, it's obvious they use Wikipedia to promote their YouTube account. That should be enough to block them.soetermans.↑↑↓↓←→←→ B ATALK04:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
22:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC) "Fama global me parece lo mas correcto para describir ese momento en la carrerra de winona"
22:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC) "Chance,a simple World besarse I think it doesnt describe her sucesos well"
22:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC) "Cambien simplemente una sola cosa resalte su fama mundial ya que veo que esta bastante subestimada ademas de que varias de sus peliculas son un clasico y de culto"
Already blocked. I rangeblocked them prior to this report being made. I've also restored semi-protection to the article which had expired.--Ponyobons mots23:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[100][101][102]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[103]
Comments: Through 19 years of many hundreds of contributions with only one or two comparatively minor issues with an editor or administrator, this is actually the first and only time I've encountered such an unnecessarily extreme conflict with an individual and escalating reversions that I've been compelled to take inordinate time to attempt to address as advised through the user's talk page to no avail. Notwithstanding my own misunderstandings and increasing frustration which I concede, I believe the record will show my good faith efforts at every turn to submit factual information based on credible and approved reliable sources, only to see reversions time and again which ultimately ended with demonstrably false information for the third or more time which the user in question knowingly posted only on what I deem an irrationally misguided principle of adherence to Wikipedia's rule on synthesis at the actual expense of the site's credibility with a verifiably false detail. Not only did I repeatedly request proper adjudication with at least two attempted corrections as well as one talk page entry. But I also contend through the talk page, given the absurdly conflicting lack of logic in at least one of the user's responses which I readily deconstructed, and the nature of the numerous reversions in violation of the policy limit, I have every reason to believe the user was intentionally provoking this upset under false pretenses of authority and equally unacceptable wholly faulty logic.RRawpower (talk)23:58, 9 July 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 completediffs. Without prejudice. Use the actual article titles, not the URLs.Daniel Case (talk)02:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
As a former professional design as well as Mac computer tech I frankly have to say I'm astonished after all these years to find just how unbelievably confusing and obtuse Wikipedia's system appears to be, regardless of how massive and how long the site has been established, or even how many other people apparently manage to navigate it.
In this case, I might understand the result "malformed" if not for yet more incredibly time consuming corrections starting all over again with an entirely new report that must require copying all the diffs anew when the obviously better process would be simply to port the existing report over with the specific fields indicated requiring correction highlighted which would in turn avoid any problem with compounding errors in the report.
Equally confounding is the last note "use the actual article titles, not the URLs" since I had, in fact, first attempted to enter simply the name of the subject, "Larry Charles", only to find the preview section displaying NO such title whatsoever but rather the footer block, "Films directed by Larry Charles", for absolutely no apparent reason. And that is exactly why I could see no alternative but to resort to the URL instead as the most logical entry.
So if that may be the only reason I must go through this entire exercise again, after making the original point of being subjected to what may yet be determined to be deliberately provocative antagonistic reversions, it's a wonder this site has ever got to this point of relatively effective functionality otherwise. And my own relative tech familiarity notwithstanding, I can't begin to imagine most people tolerating so much of what I said appears to me to be incredibly arcane and obtuse "Help" pages and guides which I'm then accused of being "extremely angry and confused" for being forced to wade through and still find no relevant answers, let alone satisfaction. I suspect most people simply don't bother, while you have someone like the user/editor/admin? I don't know what exactly continue rolling along with abusive behavior under the guise of "polite" correspondence, adding insult to injury on "Civility" after failing to follow the specific advice, indeed requirement, to take such matters to a Talk page FIRST before getting out of hand with excessive reversions – which I didn't even know was actually supposed to be limited to 4 until this whole mess to begin with. I'M the one who felt compelled to remember and then resort to Talk as I said.
So before I do bother taking all the time to recompile every single diff and detail, please help clear this up before I risk making any other mistake that should make apparent I will not put up with all this a third time. Thanks.RRawpower (talk)07:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I've had a closer look but beyond a wall of text complaining about the process, there were repeated attempts to set the birth date to something more specific than "1955 or 1956", which was repeatedly challenged byRift, whose reverts except the last one are exempt from the edit warring policy perWP:3RRNO #7.~ ToBeFree (talk)09:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Look at all the other reports here. Those people seemed to have no problem figuring this out. I think at most 10-20% of these reports get declined this way (And maybe given how things turned out for you, maybe you would have been better off letting sleeping dogs lie).Daniel Case (talk)02:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
The IP editor tends to write ungrammatical English, and wants to write based on his/her claimed-knowledge of the hotel rather than based on what sources say. Other editors have tried to accommodate what he/she is trying to achieve. Some of his/her edit summaries have been constructive such as when he/she explained that the source of his information was personal knowledge; but others have accused other editors of vandalism or of being ignorant. He/she puts spaces in between the letters ofv a n d a l i s m u s presumably to avoid automatic filters.
Attempts to warn the user on their talk page:[104],[105] - in the latter I tried asking him/her to provide a citation to support a statement he/she had added - he/she just blanked the talk page.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[106]
Comments: Hotel articles and also ship articles. Here is another example:[107][108][109]. Three unsourced edits, all reverted. I have also warned this editor, here:[110]. Uncivil behavior is a problem too, like "you are ignorant":[111].GA-RT-22 (talk)13:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Toddy1 in his her own page says he or she in ukranian language "known few english" and really knows nothing about aquadom. the Star of seas was right from me confirmed after by others the same infrmation. This is the Toody1 text translated to englishhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toddy1 "en-0This user does not understand English (or understands it with considerable difficulty)." "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI respect men. They make life more interesting, they offer a hand, open the door, buy chocolate and dresses. They meet us at airports. They will go to war if there is a war. They are brave.
I respect men. They say: "no problem", "no problem" - and there really are no problems...
They come to the university for us, they take us away from other people's guests, bring us home and cover us with a blanket; they like to look at us without make-up, they take us in their arms if there is a puddle, they think that we are small and need to be hugged. They are right.
They become fathers, they give our children their last names. They protect us. They smell of expensive cologne.
I respect men. Their words often match their actions. They know everything better than us. They are always interested in where we are. They insistently want to pay for our coffee, although they themselves do not know why. They tolerate our whims and tell their friends: "She has a bad character, but she is so beautiful!"...
They forgive us everything, although we, mind you, forgive them nothing at all...
The text is a bit strange and may come from elsewhere on the internet; I have now askedToddy1 about it. It neither justifies your edit warring nor your personalization of a content dispute, though, and it is irrelevant to this report here.~ ToBeFree (talk)14:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Dear ToBefree, thanks for your action. For the sake of information I believe problems with this user can be traced back to 2012. This IP is located in Hamburg, Germany. Taking into account grammar mistakes, typical of native Portuguese speakers, it possibly belongs to a Brazilian (or any Portuguese speaker) living there. At first, blank accounts were used such as Crucks (banned in 2012), Monart (blocked in 2014), SeasSoul (blocked in 2019), CBG17 (blocked in 2019), and Mateusportuga (dormant). Since then, the person uses only IPs and consistently blanks anything written on Talk pages. Because of this person, the pageFortaleza Airport remained protected for a whole year in the past.Brunoptsem (talk)23:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user was warned against edit warring on the same page in May[119].
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am a third-party, a discussion was started by Thewideawake1[120] that opened with"Some people named Karabawan has now vandalized the DuterTen article now.", this did not have an impact on the reverting activity.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[121]
Comments: I would like to note thatKarabawan (talk·contribs), whom they have edit-warred with, is a today-created SPA account on Philippine politics who has committed 5RR on the same article today and is the subject of complaints involvingWP:SYNTH,WP:SOAPBOX and editorializing by other editors (me included) on aforementioned talk page and in ANI.Borgenland (talk)14:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Comments: The ip-user is more concerned with disruption than starting a discussion and ignores sources for the existing consensus. (copy/paste the same claim in several places: e.g. in the edit summary or User talk pages23:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC);01:34, 14 July 2025 ) and ignores sources for the existing consensus. Since the user was already banned in May 2024, it can be assumed that the disruptive behavior has not improved (seeUser talk:81.184.63.174).Miria~01 (talk)09:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
user sybercracker is continuously undoing my reverts on the page Gujjar Muslims with the same extremely unreliable sourcesAnpanman11 (talk)15:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Check hereTalk:Muslim Gujjars I've provided quotes from the sources you were wrong. First you made edit with misleading edit summary then you again and again without any justification reverted my edits. I've initiated a conversation atTalk: Muslim Gujjars but instead of replying there with quotes from the sources you accused me. You were wrong about the source you cited there in source only 44 lakh population is mentioned about Muslim Gujjars in India not in Pakistan. In Pakistan source said they constitute 14% but all recently published sources said their population increased to 6% now is 20%. Your journal was outdated published in 1988. Further I've explained on article talk page come and discuss where in your source it is written what you claimed ?Sybercracker (talk)16:26, 14 July 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 completediffs.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
User repeatedly adds a promotional website (iceposeidon-streamer.com) to the Ice Poseidon article, falsely claiming it is the subject's "official streaming hub". The site is unsourced, is promotional and serves mainly to promote **casino affiliate links** — violatingWP:SPAM,WP:NOT, andWP:RS.
I attempted to remove it initially but they repeatedly revert my edits without any communication or edit summary addressing why they're reverting etc.
Unsure if this is valid for intervention yet, but would like to report nonetheless as they're repeatedly adding fake urls as references to a casino affiliate site.
TerritoryComprises was the one who created unproductive edits his edit is reverted by another editors but he again make the same edit with false claim that no reference support previous statement meanwhile there was a source like book name and page number is mentioned, but he removed that reference and statement.
When I rised my objection on that and I removed his edit he again make the same edit, i revert his edit and invite him on talk page but he again revert my edit without reaching any conclusion.Alexendrya ohio (talk)14:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Addendum -- both users have continued edits and reverts back and forth since they were notified of this discussion. Just now noticing both accounts are brand new as of the last few days and this page has a history of disruptive editing. —tony16:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:Just a note that the most recent edit was in a different part of the article but still edit warring over the same content. —Czello(music)14:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Comments: Persistent addition and store of their own prefered revision his cited source is outdated and based on 1933 caste census of British India even in the journal there is only mention of 44 lakh Muslim Gujjars in India not in Pakistan. I've added sources in infobox were recently published one was published byGovernment university of Hazara, KPK, 2nd source was a published book of a notable Pakistani author.Sybercracker (talk)09:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
You warned me for "if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary" which I did not do.WP:AIIMGBLP forbids AI images of living people.WP:3RRBLP is an exemption to the 3RR policy.— Precedingunsigned comment added by206.83.98.234 (talk)00:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Warned —@206.83.98.234: normally this would still be blockable as you werealso edit warring over other parts of the article simultaneously (until your final edit). That said, you're absolutely right about citing thebiographies of living persons exception, and AI-generated images of living people (unless they're themselves notable in context, which doesn't seem to be the case here) are part of that policy. I would still recommend seeking the help of others in the future (for example on thebiographies of living persons noticeboard and/or the article's talk page) rather than repeatedly reverting, and definitely keep the content of the revertnarrowly specific to the BLP violation if you feel youabsolutely must repeatedly revert, otherwise you risk being blocked forthe other parts of the revert. --slakr\ talk /12:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I came here to file this exact report, but I see it has already been done. The last edit should be reverted to theWP:AfC-approved draft, which can be discussed civilly if there are further content disputes on this matter.BD2412T03:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
There is lack of consensus for an article on the original AfD, an as evidenced by my first revert to the prior consensus revision (a redirect). This article was moved from AfC, to mainspace, in minutes. Several of the above reverts may have even been in draft space. This is absurd tag-teaming. Block me if you must, cops. I care about editing and producing content. But I cannot abide bullying.Tito Omburo (talk)03:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
It went through AFC, if you disagree with it, the solution here is to take the article to AFD so the new state of the article can be debated, not insist that a 10 year old discussion about an article that evolved well beyond the state it was in 10 years ago is binding.Headbomb {t ·c ·p ·b}17:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Persistent addition of names backed by a clearly unreliable source - some dubious keywords on an online photo repository. I didn't notify the user via template (I coudn't find one specifically for unreliable sources), but I did communicate via edit summaries—to which the user responded in a way that made it clear they had no knowledge of or intention to follow neitherWP:RS norWP:CONSENSUS. An attempt to communicate via his talk page asking for better sources went unheeded. I have no intention of prolonging an edit war, so I'm requesting an administrator to intervene.Lone-078 (talk)16:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
The article originally listed only Djeser and Zoser, both unsourced. An IP then added a plausible source confirming these two plus Dyeser and Djosci. That edit was reverted, removing the only source backing any of the four spellings, yet the original unsourced variants were left in place. This contradictsWP:V. If we're rejecting the source, we need to remove all four variants, not just the ones it added.Cherreparator (talk)16:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
On your talk page, I actually asked for a serious Egyptological source attesting the variants, but you promptly ignored me, content to simply include an unreliable source. It's only now that you've taken the time to respond constructively on a talk page. Anyway, fine by me to remove both the source in question and the four variants; these can be reinstated if reliable sources backing them are found.Lone-078 (talk)17:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Again, you could have civilly replied to me on your talk instead of playing dead until I, having no response from you, reverted again. Anyway I think we can agree to remove all 4 variants. Your link seems to be a self-published blog, which failsWP:RS; academical sources in Egyptology (books, papers etc) are needed. I'll look through the ones I have tomorrow for any possible English variants.Lone-078 (talk)19:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I didn't "play dead". I had already explained my reasoning clearly in the edit summary. You chose to ignore it and reverted the edit days later using the same argument you'd already made. I saw no reason to restate what had been said. If anything, that was a closed loop on your end. Cheers.Cherreparator (talk)19:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi,ToBeFree. I find it baffling that the last "stable" version was restored despite the variant spellings still lacking sources. From my understanding, either the content gets sourced or removed. That it stayed in place for so long doesn't make it less unsourced. Just my take. Cheers.Cherreparator (talk)11:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm not here to advocate for the removal of unsourced claims because it matters to me personally. It doesn't. I don't care which spellings are kept or deleted. But if they're unsourced, they shouldn't be there, because that's Wikipedia's policy, not my preference. Acting like I needed to push harder for deletion misrepresents the issue. This isn't about what I want, it's about what the platform demands. If verifiability isn't enforced consistently, that's not on me. It's a credibility problem for Wikipedia. Take care.Cherreparator (talk)22:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
15:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC) "“Lady GaGa No Rio: 'MAYHEM' On The Beach/'MAYHEM' Na Praia (Praia De Copacabana; 3 De Maio De 2025)” did NOT drew a total of 2.5 million spectators. This number was arbitrary, and has been debunked, officially, by “BBC Verify” (Link to the source:https://www.BBC.com/news/articles/cm20rg0vvp9o)."
15:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC) "Several media outlets, like “El País”, estimated “Madonna: 'The Celebration Tour' In Rio. The Biggest Dance Floor In The World. Four Decades (4 De Maio De 2024; Praia De Copacabana)” an attendance as high as over 2.5 million people, setting the record for the highest attendance for a standalone concert ever."
15:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC) "“Lady GaGa No Rio: 'MAYHEM' On The Beach/'MAYHEM' Na Praia (Praia De Copacabana; 3 De Maio De 2025)” did NOT drew a total of 2.5 million spectators. This number was arbitrary, and has been debunked, officially, by “BBC Verify” (Link to the source:https://www.BBC.com/news/articles/cm20rg0vvp9o)."
15:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC) "Several media outlets, like “El País”, estimated “Madonna: 'The Celebration Tour' In Rio. The Biggest Dance Floor In The World. Four Decades (4 De Maio De 2024; Praia De Copacabana)” an attendance as high as over 2.5 million people, setting the record for the highest attendance for a standalone concert ever."
14:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC) "“LADY GAGA NO RIO: 'MAYHEM' ON THE BEACH/'MAYHEM' NA PRAIA (PRAIA DE COPACABANA; 3 DE MAIO DE 2025)” did NOT drew a total of over 2.5 million spectators. This number has been officially debunked by “BBC Verify”. Source:https://www.BBC.com/news/articles/cm20rg0vvp9o"
14:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC) "Several media outlets, like “El Pais”, estimated an attendance as high as over 2.5 million spectators for “Madonna: 'The Celebration Tour' In Rio. The Biggest Dance Floor In The World. Four Decades (4 De Maio De 2024; Praia De Copacabana)”."
18:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC) "Content- IRS search engine for nonprofit determination letters indicates that this church does not have such a letter and is not considered such"
IP editor is dropping original research into the article, doing reverts w/o explanations, ignoring talk page warnings and article talk discussion. The editor even removed the original research tag I placed.Stefen𝕋owers among the rest!Gab •Gruntwerk19:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And since no one's edited the article in two days, this has gotten stale.Daniel Case (talk)
I was about to come here to create this 3RR report. I want to add that this is a particularly egregious example of edit warring as it is edit warring to insert an obviouslyWP:NPOV violatingWP:COATRACK into an article about aWP:BLP. There is no world in which this content would be appropriate for Wikipedia which makes Jsmith4500's insistence on inserting it even more problematic. This is also not the first time that this editor has edit-warred inappropriate material into a BLP.[145]Simonm223 (talk)20:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
This clown thinks that you can protect your Wiki queen from valid criticism. That's now how this is supposed to work. The new additions to the entry were factually accurate and included numerous citations. Rather than identify things that were wrong, a blanket removal was attempted. That is in bad faith. The additional section is germane and timely. It is important for Wikipedia to be up-to-date and what the complainers are trying to do is censor news. That's now how this is supposed to work.Jsmith4500 (talk)20:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Dear friends from Wikipedia, allow me to defend myself against this attack by the user FromCzech. It is great that links to the history of changes on theFC Zbrojovka Brno page were provided here, which will be used against the user FromCzech. Just look at the history.
This user's vandalism began when a player with the full name Kauan Carneiro Da Silva came to the club. Immediately after joining the club, he chose the nickname Kaká, which was presented by both theclub and othermedia. I documented everything in the history of changes. However, the user absurdly insisted on the name Kauan Carneiro and constantly reverted the changes, arguing by absurdly referring to the official website of the competition. However, there are no rosters there as of today. I wrote to him that the player chooses his nickname, then tells the club about it and only then does the league website adopt it. So it only depends on what is presented by the club!
The user kept reverting changes to his name, thus violating the rules and committing unjustified vandalism. If the user is unable to understand this simple sequence, he should refrain from such actions in the future.
Another user Cloudz679 argued that the roster on the website does not contain this player. But this was at a time when the roster was empty, because it was undergoing reconstruction before the new season. By this logic, the entire roster would have to be deleted from the Wiki pages, not only for this club, but also for others.
The user consistently refuses to admit any editing errors, not even ex post, as was shown, for example, with the playerWilliam Mackleyther, where he also did not respect the fact that the player chose a new nickname, although publicly available sources spoke against him.
His continued reversions seem to ignore Wikipedia’s principles of respecting subject self-identification and the need for consensus when there is disagreement.
I encourage him to stop reverting and instead engage in discussion on the article's talk page, in line with Wikipedia's dispute resolution guidelines. Persisting in this manner may constitute edit warring and lead to administrative intervention.Pospeak (talk)04:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid you misunderstood that this is about user behavior, not page content. In the edit summary at the beginning of this disagreement, I listed examples of four sources supporting my claim, but you revert saying that the official page of your favorite football club is more important. Even if you were 100% right, you can't revert repeatedly and you can't go against the majority of users, afterCloudz679 get involved. Whenever we had a dispute, it was me who started the discussion instead of reverting (see your Talk page) and never you. Moreover, you are not trying to resolve the disagreement peacefully, but you accused me of vandalism and edit warring. It looks like you areWP:NOTHERE.FromCzech (talk)05:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I am involved here as Pospeak has been repeatedly adding unsourced information, and when I challenged it, I was reverted. Please readWikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Prefer we work together to nurture these pages to be valid. In terms of content, we shouldn't be attempting to host the Z Brno (or other clubs) squad's new, never-published version, when ithasn't yet been published anywhere else in that form. And for behaviour, bludgeoning reverts, particularly on this specific page/subtopic, over a sustained period, does suggestWP:NOTHERE.C67905:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
You may have missed it in the flood of edit war, but I cited an article on the club's website as a source. And other articles were in various media. As for the roster on the club's website that you referred to, it was under construction at the time and did not contain any players. And yes, we can fix that by adding a link to the club's website in addition to the roster link, e.g. in the edit summary. That could be a solution.Pospeak (talk)10:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Also adding that Pospeak mentioning edit warring twice (once each to different users - myself - edit 3 at the top and once to FromCzech in[148]) in the recent history of the page suggests some kind of siege mentality and among the most troubling parts of this incident.C67906:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
You are confusing cause and effect. I repeat again, just like in the past. If you were able to admit a mistake in the shadow of clearly sourced articles on the club's official website and in the media, then there would be no need for any editing war. Let's please get back to the facts and content of the page, because that is what matters. You did not cite any sources, you only insisted on a name that the player did not choose. Just like in the case of the previously mentioned player. Of course, reality proved me right when you look at the current team roster.
Completely missing the point here.WP:BURDEN is on you as the editor adding material. Incendiary comments in your edit summaries - as well as those written at 10:00 UTC today and appearing below this comment - and the refusal to accept alternative opinions do not contribute to a collaborative project.C67912:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Your claim that if I were 100% right, I still cannot go against the decision of 2 users (who are therefore writing 100% lies) is unbelievable. If a player freely chooses a nickname according to his right, there is no possible peaceful path. If you claimed that the capital of the Czech Republic is Mladá Boleslav, I will not make peace with you either...Pospeak (talk)10:00, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hours. All parties involved need to use the talk page to discuss this, and to provide sources for changes to biographical information. Statements such asthere is no possible peaceful path andI will not make peace with you either appears to beWP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.Aoidh (talk)05:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As this is a continuation of earlier disruptive behaviour, I did not bother to warn the user again.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As this is a continuation of earlier disruptive behaviour, I did not bother to engage in any dispute.
Krótki, thanks for reporting this instead of reverting again. I'm semi-protecting the page without blocking you in an expectation of you not reverting again during these three months. If you're right about this, anyone else can and will sooner or later revert. The last message on the article's talk page was two years ago and it's time for you to start a discussion instead of making the 8th revert. Please try inviting the other participants on their talk pages using{{please see}}, even if these are dynamic IP addresses.~ ToBeFree (talk)10:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[154] since removed
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[155] since removed, and I have asked for more information here:[156], and also some discussion in the edit summaries at[157]. I understand their message ("now go away") as them not wanting to discuss further.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[158]
Comments: I have not reported here before, so I apologise if I have made a mistake, or if there is more than needs to be done somewhere else. I just need help from a third party and understand I may be in the wrong. Thank you!-- NotCharizard🗨12:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
The user is misrepresenting my initial edit to the article as a revert, to falsely claim that I have reverted four times. I have asked them repeatedly why they think the text I removed was important. They have not addressed that. They seem intent on pestering me, and frankly I am already extremely fed up of that.2lc (talk)12:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
HelloLemonaka, the three-revert rule isone form of edit warring, not the only one. That said, there have been four removals/reverts, but these are arguably exempt from the policy against edit warring perWP:3RRNO #7.~ ToBeFree (talk)14:23, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[165]
Comments:
Editor continually changing area in infobox despite 3RR warning on user talk page asking them to discuss their changes. Similar disruptive editing on other articles as well.Mellk (talk)05:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello. I understand the concern. My intention was not to edit war. I made changes based on reliable sources (Profile Books preview PDF and Seshat database), and I believed they improved the accuracy of the article. I will refrain from making repeated reverts and will wait for consensus on the talk page. Thank you.BBJJKK (talk)05:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I understand the concern, but I would like to clarify that the previous figure of 4.4 million km² had no cited academic source. I updated the area to 5.5 million km² based on reliable references, including Seshat: Global History Databank and the preview from Profile Books. Both are academically accepted sources. Therefore, I believe the new figure is better supported and should remain unless a stronger, properly cited alternative is presented. Thank youBBJJKK (talk)06:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
You have still violated 3RR (which is a blockable offense) and there were already three sources cited (note that this response isidentical to what they posted on the article's talk page).Mellk (talk)06:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any three sources, so I changed the Timurid area to 5.5 million km² because I couldn't find that source.BBJJKK (talk)06:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I gave you enough sources, and you say you have a source but you can't show it. There was no information on Wikipedia that the Timurids' area was 4.4 million km², which is why I changed it to reliable sources.BBJJKK (talk)06:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I hope that even though I've cited so many sources that it's 5.5 million km², you won't try to change it back to 4.4 million km² because there's no academic data.BBJJKK (talk)06:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
But my sources were also valid, and yours is only the first source is close to the truth, but some of the empire areas in your first source do not match Wikipedia's data. From your second source, I could not find any information about the size of the Timurid Empire, and your third source is a regular site that does not blindly copy your first source. Maybe in this case, you will go back and change the Timurid Empire to 4.4 million km². This is unfairBBJJKK (talk)06:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
For the millionth time, the 4.4 million figure is already cited to three sources. I hope you are not related to BBJJKK.Mellk (talk)11:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Your first source is great, I admit, but some of the fields do not match other information on Wikipedia, and in your second source I could not find any information about the Timurid field, and your third source is just a copied version of the first source, now think about it, I gave you two sources that are clearly and strongly identical, but yours is very weak, and the remaining empire fields do not match WikipediaBBJJKK (talk)11:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Taagepara's data does not match at all, Wikipedia says the Tang Dynasty was 5.4 million km², but Taageparanjng's source estimates it at 5.2 million km², and the Golden Horde at 5.2 million km², but Wikipedia says 6 million km², and Byzantium at 1.5-1.6 million km², but in reality it is not that much. The Seshat.Com website you doubted was created by Turchin Peter, you called it unreliable, but the area of both the Macedonian Empire and the Ottoman Empire was taken from Peter Turchin's book "A Theory for the formation of Large empires", and here you are doubting Seshat.Com, which was created by Turchin, although Wikipedia used his books as a source. Taagepara said in his first book that the Timurids were 4 million km², but then in Wikipedia it is 4.4 million m². This does not match at all. The real source is the information provided by Peter Turchin and Daniel Hoyer in the book Profile Books, which is 5.5 million km² in the Temurid area. Seshat.Com, and they are consistent with each otherBBJJKK (talk)11:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Why did you tell me to place the Timurids, like the Mauryan Empire, based on two different sources, but then you reverted them to their previous state? How fair is that?BBJJKK (talk)16:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Moreover, these two studies related to Seshat.Com and Profile Book are also modern and new studies, so it would be better to leave the Timurid Empire as 5.5 million km², and it would be great if you could adjust the area of the Timurid Empire in the article The Largest of Empires to the same. The reason is that having two different, contradictory information in two articles leads to confusion and distrust. I hope you agree with me. The discussion needs to end as soon as possibleBBJJKK (talk)11:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Declined as user seems to have started discussing. I have alerted them to CTOPS, especially since IPA has been merged with SL and the SASG sanctions and expanded to apply to Bangladesh and Nepal, too (It's now officially South Asia (but still excludesBhutan).Daniel Case (talk)20:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No formal warning as I didn't want to come off as hostile or enforcing my own view point as I would have had to be the one warning them (nobody else except me and them are involved in this). I also myself am bordering on 3RR, so I am trying to back away from the situation directly (hence the following discussion). Although, I did specifyhere that I wanted to avoid an edit war. But I apologize if a warning would've been desired prior to this report and if that discussion wasn't enough.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:here
Comments: To fully clarify, some things on this report may look odd as, in the middle of this, I tried making a series of changes to the article itself to make it more compliant with sourcing policies. So the original version linked above is technically different than the one that was there prior to the users fourth revert, if that makes sense. But maybe this wasn't the appropriate time to do cleanup on the article when an edit war was underway, so I own up to that. Also, this is my first time engaging with this noticeboard at all, so I apologize if I am missing anything here or if the situation is not urgent enough (it really is just over the wording of a lead sentence). I just didn't know what else to do about it.λNegativeMP121:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
User is continuing to edit (seehere and the rest of their recent contributions) while ignoring this situation. Even though they've been alerted on their talk page.λNegativeMP123:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
01:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "REmoving these papers which were significant is vandalism and willful prevention of updating the article to present year. That you had not edited the previous nonsense out (ER=EPR is not in any way related to a UFT) means you are not qualified to be editing."
01:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "/* Present status */ - REFERENCES IN PROCESS OF BEING UPDATED DO NOT VANDALIZE!!!!"
01:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Stop vandalizing article -- all of these papers are discussed in scientific literature and the last one is in peer review now, there is no reason to remove these the paper is vandalize with old crackpottery and needs updating with recent developments"
01:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Causal sets and ER = EPR are not theoories of everything I am repairing a mess and updating it stop interfering and using this to hold up promotional crackpot theories"
01:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "I am not promoting any particular theory. The field theories listed here are crackpot theories. I am replacing with the popular developments through the current year"
100% of this new user's edits so far have been additions of a preprint article and/or a biography of the author of that preprint. In addition to the 4 reverts at Theory of Everything, they're up to 3 about the same content atQuantum gravity.MrOllie (talk)01:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I have been updating to include work by Roger Penrose (the greatest living physicist), Peter Woit, Alan Connnes, etc. I have suggested a recent physicist's bio be added but that is purely for the purposes of including more information on relevant physicists. When I found the article "quantum gravity" and "theory of everything" the articles included random references to "ER = EPR" as a possible route to unification when it is not, references to crackpot theories and even set theory as possible routes. I have been updating and removing complete nonsense, promotional references and past vandalism. Please stop interfering. You may remove the reference to the last speculative work if it's helpful, but that paper is less speculative than Lisi's paper which NEEDS to be mentioned so your attack edits make no senseSunjara (talk)01:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I have tried explaining the problems with your edits on your Talk page. Your responses to my edits have included a personal insult ("That you had not edited the previous nonsense out (ER=EPR is not in any way related to a UFT) means you are not qualified to be editing" — for the record, I would have removed that if I had noticed it).Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk)01:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: After I warned, I stopped editing article and talk. Grayfell decided place condescending messages on mytalk page rather than discuss on article talk. I do not wish to speak with him right now.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[174]
This block of edits and I supposethis edit are reverts. The rest are just normal edits. Czarking0 did not attempt to discuss this with me, reverting in ways which did not actually undo the changes and which introduced blatant errors. Czarking0 templated message doesn't really seem like an assumption of good faith in this situation. I was exasperated by this, but I did not mean to be condescending.Grayfell (talk)02:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what that link is supposed to prove. Are you talking about my talk page comment? Your reverts had problems, and your talk page seemed like the place to explain that, since your template suggested that you didn't understand what I was saying. I would be happy to explain the content issues involved, somewhere else, but AN/EW is premature at best.Grayfell (talk)02:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Blocked – for a period ofone week. See also the user's attempted noticeboard disruption caught by the edit filter.Bishonen |tålk18:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
As well as over 50 other re-writes of the page describing it as "social conservative," "anti-queer," "pro-Donald Trump," "pro-tax cuts," and "far-right."
Comments: The user repeatedly vandalizes the article and copies-and-pastes the vandalism of another user, SocDoneLeft. Tbhotch SocDoneLeft has edited the page over 50 times, changing the ideology to "far-right," claiming ACP is "pro-Donald Trump," and other facially incorrect claims.
The original article is balanced and acknowledges controversies and opinions in the opening paragraph, while also containing the ACP's own statements showing another explanation. Users Tbhotch and SocDoneLeft repeatedly deleted this.
Tbhotch has not provided sources justifying these claims about ACP supporting Donald Trump when asked to in the Talk page and instead complains about "civility," given that many are frustrated with a clearly disingenuous series of edits to the page.
To provide one example of what I believe is the user's deliberate attempts to mislead readers, here are ACP's statements about Donald Trump:
In sum: please consider banning Tbhotch and SocDoneLeft from the American Communist Party page. Their edits are inaccurate, misleading, and repeatedly vandalize an otherwise balanced, accurate, and well-sourced article.
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. One of the claimed reverts is an addition of a{{more citations needed}} template. —C.Fred (talk)03:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
The user is making personal attacks as well. I told this person to stop making such attacks, and started attacking me then. Considering this person's talk page, this is aWP:SPI account with no intentions to build an encyclopedia.(CC)Tbhotch™01:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
User @Tbhotch is vandalizing the article for theAmerican Communist Party by undoing a balanced, accurate, and well-sourced article and replacing it with a politically-motivated hit-piece. Here is a comparison between the unvandalized original and @Tbhotch / @SocDoneLeft's vandalism:
I have stated this in the Talks page for further details aboutwhy these claims are disingenuous, not the least of which the claims that ACP is "anti-feminist, anti-queer, (3)anti-environmentalist, (4) pro-tax cuts, and (5)pro-Donald Trump. These are very easily debunked by going onto ACP's public profiles and reading its statements.
The original and unvandalized article makes clear and fair mention of the allegations that MAGA Communism, the ideology of two of the 10 ACP cofounders, is right-wing syncretist. It follows this up with those cofounders' claims which clearly dispute this. The latter are routinely omitted by @Tbhotch and @SocDoneLeft.
@ZFoster11: In case you missed the top of this page: "content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism.", Yet, you continue calling me a "VANDAL", even when I already told youwhat is vandalism. Calling me a "VANDAL" isincivility, which goes against Wikipedia's code of conduct. You were informed on thison January 2025: "follow editorial and behavioural best practices". Additionally, this page serves the purpose to report edit-warring. Can you explain why you continued edit-warring and then decided to discuss this until after you were reported?(CC)Tbhotch™02:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
You are a vandal who continues to spam that ACP is pro-Donald Trump with zero justification. When asked to provide a source, several times, you have deflected and complained about "civility." I am able to call you a vandal and a liar because you have shown disregard for editorial integrity and dishonesty in your vandalism, which has taken a very balanced article and turned it into a factually inaccurate, misleading page reflecting what is likely your political opinions.
Comments: Since February, the user has very quickly reverted, often with no explanation, four separate removals of an element in the article by four separate users, clearly displaying some sort of perceivedWP:ownership of the page.
The behaviour escalated today as I removed the element and opened a discussion onthe talk page calling on the user to justify the inclusion of this element in the article and reach consensus with the editors who disputed its inclusion underWP:ONUS, which states thatthe responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Perhaps there is some secret corollary toWP:ONUS that I am not aware of: user claims that the policy is irrelevant here as it not "new content". It should be noted that the content has only remained in the first place due to the user's immediate reverts any time another editor has attempted to alter or remove it.
User also baselessly throws around the wordsvandalism anddisruption with respect to my attempts to enforceWP:ONUS as user seeks to unilaterally include disputed content despite disagreements from at least four editors.SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions)18:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
As far as I can see you removed the infobox, and were reverted by Cambial Yellowing. At this pointWP:BRD suggests you should have started a discussion, whch you did, but you also simply continued to revert instead. As such I am protecting the article in itsstatus quo revision. Perhaps you and CY could use the 2 weeks protection time to actually discuss the issue.Black Kite (talk)18:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Stumbled upon this while reviewing redirects. I've p-blocked from the relevant page for 24 hours and told them to take it to AfD. If edit warring continues after the block, let me know and I'll extend it.Rusalkii (talk)22:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
The editor in question has only edited that article 3 times in the last 24 hours, and only two of those edits were reversions. There is no violation of theWP:3RR here.Coming to WP:ANEWwhile saying"enjoy the ban" is not the best look, especially when there is noWP:3RR violation to speak of. I'd recommend both parties step away from the article, leaving theWP:STATUSQUO in place, and let the RfC on the article's talk page play out to completion instead of trying to bludgeon their preference into the article.RachelTensions (talk)01:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Their edits are reversions, they just redid their reversions. By that logic, and I allowed to revert their reversion>Orca (talk)01:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Both of you stop and use the talkpage to discuss if you have something to add to the in-progress RfC. So far nobody's breached 3RR. One person reverting doesn't entitle you to react. Let the RfC play out. Any more reversions by either party will bring sanctions or protection.Acroterion(talk)03:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Ok I will resubmit if she violated again. And you put the warning on my talk page when I only made 3 reverts. Do hers currently count as 3 reverts?Orca (talk)03:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
15:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1302302147 byMuboshgu (talk) Making clear, edits is not edit warring. If you have a problem, take it to the talk page, or make your own edits. Stop undoing all of my edits and accusing me of what you are doing."
Comments:While this appears to be a brightlineWP:3RR violation, since the user has engaged on the talk page before/during this, if they self-revert and commit to following whatever talk page consensus there is, a block may not be necessary. --Patar knight -chat/contributions02:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[182][183]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[184]
Comments: I came across theThe Theatre Times article at NPP. I added the usual maintenance tags and removed some uncited promo fluff. The author took this quite personally and reverted my removal before I had time to explain with wikilove. I noticed in their contribution history another recent biography that had not been reviewed, so I added some tags there too. I initially suspected a possible COI/autobiography situation on that, though they have denied any connection, so I removed the tags. Theycame to my talk page and eventually requested some constructive advice,which I provided, but they have apparently rejected that too. I've done my best not to be tooWP:BITEY, but overall they seem to have taken constructive edits and advice rather personally, so its at the point that I would like toWP:DISENGAGE and let someone else give them advice. In the meantime though, the maintenance tags on the articles should be reinstated.David Palmer//cloventt(talk)00:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@Photographer's Box: If an editor notices a problematic edit or two, it's perfectly fine - and indeed the responsible, helpful thing to do - to check the other contributions from the same author to make sure they are acceptable.
You are not being singled out inappropriately, and editors are not playing games. Lots of people try to post promotional material on behalf of certain people or organizations, and editors have to do a lot of work to detect and reverse these attempts. Posting material which sounds promotional raises legitimate suspicions. Your denial of connection has been taken at face value.
Regardless of the motive for posting, however, the core policyWikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that promotional material be removed or neutralized. Another core policy,Wikipedia:Verifiability, requires that posted material havereliable sources, and that any uncited material should be removed (or at the very least tagged to warn readers and so that other editors can fix it).WP:BURDEN says that the burden for finding citations is on the editor who wants it included. Other editors, who like you are volunteers, are not required to do any work chasing down sources for other people's contributions. Removing uncited material is considered helpful and appropriate unto itself, because it protects readers and the subjects of articles from potentially false or misleading claims.
Your productive contributions are welcome, but posting comments about other editors into article text is not appropriate. If you disagree with a revert or tag of your contribution, take the disagreement to the relevant talk page. Keep the discussion focused on the merits of the changes made; we are required toassume good faith of other editors, and act as if everyone is simply there trying to improve the encyclopedia. The place to report personal misbehavior is this page, but as I said, the editors reviewing your work are just following Wikipedia policies. --Beland (talk)18:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and your patience. If someone talks to me in this very civilized manner, I will always respond in a civilized manner. I was deeply offended by the deletion of half the article .... plus tag:coi. I only got knowledge of their existence few days ago, I don't know anyone there ... coi! This user deleted definitely too much without giving me the chance to add additional sources. I will try my best to follow your advice and I will reflect on your explanations. Thanks.Photographer's Box (talk)14:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Removing unreferenced text without warning is perfectly acceptable and is often preferred. All the removed text is available in the article history, so editors who are chasing down sources will always have it there to refer to if needed and don't have to recreate it. The implication of this policy is that in the meantime, it's better for readers to encounter an article with fewer facts than it is for them to encounter a longer article with unverified claims. --Beland (talk)15:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. And now stale, and the discussion above seems to have resolved tensions a bit (it really should have taken place on the article talk page).Daniel Case (talk)02:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:They made multiple edits for some reason when reverting, so it's a bit confusing if I write their diffs. But as you can see here[185], they have been reverted 5 times.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[187]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[188]
Comments: Blocked – for a period of60 hours If it had been just the four reverts a few days ago I'd let this go as stale. But it was more than that—six. Egregious enough for a block IMO.Daniel Case (talk)03:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
21:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC) "Jaiden has asked to remove the photo and replace it with a picture of her cartoon. This photo was taken without her permission."
Comments:Declined Yes, this is not allowed under 3RR. But I'm going to invoke IAR here as consensus on the talk page seems to have arrived at deleting the old image while we wait for a new one. So I suppose we can say it's sort of BLP-related.Daniel Case (talk)03:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
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.
Editor keeps inserting "American" into lead of article, when text clearly states that "Cosmos" was a joint co-production with the British Broadcasting Corporation. They also ignore that the Executive Producer, Adrian Malone was the Producer of other BBC series. My last revision, stating this was labeled as "vandalism"David J Johnson (talk)12:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Entirely false statement. The infobox inCosmos: A Personal Voyage states that it is an American production by theKCET, and the only statement of BBC's supposed involvement is an unsourced statement to which I added a citation needed template. Johnson also keeps removing the description of the series as a documentary.Dimadick (talk)12:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need to be offensive in your comments. As I have already stated the BBC was involved and is mentioned in the end credits of each episode. Also,Adrian Malone is again mentioned as Executive Producer on his Wikipedia page. Thank you and Regards,David J Johnson (talk)13:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
What is your point? The main article on Malone states that he started working on Cosmos after he ceased working for the BBC: "In 1977, the same year the Annan Committee's report was published, Malone left the BBC and moved to the United States. He was appointed as a lecturer at theUniversity of Pennsylvania in history of science, and supportedWalter Annenberg's idea for the 'center of the visual arts', where documentaries could be produced. After that fell through, Malone moved toCalifornia where he began working on the production ofCosmos: A Personal Voyage.[1]"Dimadick (talk)13:25, 25 July 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.
If I see correctly, you made two edits ([190],[191]), one of whichDavid J Johnson had primarily objected to. Arguably,Special:Diff/1302342446 thus went too far by reverting both instead of just the second edit. Right? If that's your argumentation, I don't understand why you haven't selectively undone the collateral damage and discussed the remaining disagreement on the article's talk page. So far, you have neither provided a justification forSpecial:Diff/1302444917 nor its edit summary. Reverting too much is a common mistake you yourself apparently made in the same dispute, not vandalism.~ ToBeFree (talk)14:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I have now moved the discussion to the article's talk page, removed the disputed word from the article's lead and close this as no further action needed.~ ToBeFree (talk)15:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[197]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[198]
Comments: Very complex case this one is. The user began by reverting my entire edit over a dispute about removing sourced yet somewhat outdated info, saying: “Rv undiscussed changes; the content you removed is well-substantiated.” I believed that revert was unfair and reverted it once (my first and only revert at the time), yet he immediately warned me about blocking, despite there being no edit warring on my part.
I even responded to his unnecessary block warning and agreed to leave out the info he had specifically disputed in a subsequent edit, because that was the right action for the article, leaving disputed info for discussion instead. However, he again reverted my reversal, this time changing the reason for the revert, claiming it was “original research” this time even though the content was fully sourced from reliable news outlets and did not include the differences that user disagreed with. That revert was invalid, so I reverted it to address his repeated removal of sourced valid info, which violates Wikipedia’s core content policies.
Another editor then reverted my sourced content as well, calling it “original research,” which I disagree with but consider irrelevant to this report. The main issue is how Skitash consistently threatened to report me from the very first reversal I made (backed by sources), instead of discussing our differences. Warning to block someone over a single revert is unprofessional and feels unnecessarily personal, especially considering the information I contributed was sourced and good-faith. I also detect some sort of bias here regarding the article, considering his prior topics (he made an article about a non-existent genocide of Muslims of Sunni faith in Iraq; which contains 0 sources, and if you understand Middle Eastern geopolitics, the article about thePopular Mobilization Forces refers to a group that non-Iraqi Sunnis are known to dislike. This proves potential bias on Skitash’s part, and by the way; my info is not politically charged, I’m an Iraqi Sunni. Just saying.)
No violation There must be four or more reversions to breach 3RR. Furthermore, your edits have been contested by more than one editor. And disagreement doesn't indicate bias, so please don't wander into personal attacks.Acroterion(talk)14:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Got it about the 4 edit rule.
But when have I said “disagreement” indicates bias? Please explain here how I wandered into personal attacks when I literally provided proof of him engaging in tweaking the article to fit one’s POV.Idk2716639 (talk)15:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
You are complaining of "bias" in this report, which is not an appropriate use of this messageboard. Administrators don't resolve content disputes, you are expected to do that on the talkpage and not comment on your perceptions of the motivations of other editors, which can easily be perceived as personal attacks. You should avoid commenting on what you think about other editors. Belief that you're right and someone else is wrong is not an excuse for edit-warring or personalizing disputes over content and sourcing.Acroterion(talk)15:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I understand the clarification. I only added that context because I felt it was relevant for understanding the case, not to comment on editors personallyIdk2716639 (talk)15:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[210][211]
Comments: Both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war over the last four months. They each have made the same edit to the page, reverting each other, 20 times each. No effort to engage with each other on the talk page or on their respective talk pages. Edits have continued after being warned (and specifically warned that you can edit war even if you don't violate the 3rr rule).meamemg (talk)14:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
This is is not even a content dispute. They have not modified the text at all, with the exception of adding or removing links to other articles. There is no major difference between their versions.Dimadick (talk)14:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
18:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1302644249 by45dogs (talk) Quit your vandalism! You have zero justification, for your reversion, and haven't even TRIED to present any. Nor has anyone else. Bad faith reverting of valid edits, for no reason, is vandalism. If you object, how about you try discussion, over edit warring?"
18:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1302639062 byTonySt (talk) That is an obvious lie, that has already been addressed ...and I've not added anything, that would need verification."
17:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1302634809 byAugmented Seventh (talk) Reverted obvious bad faith POV edit warring. An undo that is based on a (claimed) assumption of bad faith, with no regard for how justified the edit is (especially when combined with a refusal of debate), is clearly just vandalism. Vandalism can be reverted, with impunity."
17:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1302633192 byMrOllie (talk) Cease your POV edit warring, and refusal of discussion! You are in complete violation of all Wikipedia principles, and all that Wikipedia supposedly stands for."
15:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1302625499 byTonySt (talk) Reverted baseless slander. The ref is dead, which is reason enough, by itself, to remove it ...and also contradicted by Merriam-Webster"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[227]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[228]
Comments: User Amrflh00 has repeatedly tried to use an unofficial estimate of Chinese Indonesian population as the official figure for the population.[229] The figure is problematic as it is not from official census and it is unclear how to the number is arrived at, resulting in a population figure that is unusually large (explanation of why the figure is problematic is given in the discussion). As all the available population figures have issues, the discussion has produced a compromise where a range of figures are given without saying which one is the true figure in the Chinese Indonesian article. Amrflh00, however, has refused the compromise edit and insisted on their own preferred edits where their figure is given prominence as the best new figure. Given that the editor did not received any support in the discussion, and they complained that there were too few participants, the advice was given that Amrflh00 should start an RfC to garner support for the edits, but so far the editor has chosen not to do so, complaining instead about other population figures that made no difference to their edits. At the moment, they appear content to keep reverting to their edits every few days until they get their way.Hzh (talk)21:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Comments:Since 6 July 2025, I have attempted to add reliable, cited population estimates—notably the 2023 OCAC figure of 11.15 million Chinese Indonesians—to multiple diaspora-related articles. These edits were consistently reverted by User:Hzh, often without sufficient content discussion, and replaced with outdated census data presented as the only valid figure, despite known limitations in that data due to assimilation and underreporting.
The user has:
- Repeatedly reverted edits across five articles, often without new justification;
- Dismissed valid sources (OCAC, used by academic and government publications);
- Shut down or ignored talk page discussions;
- Accused me of edit warring, while continuing reverts themselves;
- Claimed there was already a “consensus” without any RfC or wider discussion.
I am open to compromise and would support an RfC to resolve disagreements, but this behavior has crossed into disruption and gatekeeping.
I respectfully request administrator review and guidance on how best to proceed.
The first step,Amrflh00, is to log in when editing. Intentionally logging out for content and conduct discussions is disruptive; it evades scrutiny for your actions and your discussion behavior. I'm going to close this for now.~ ToBeFree (talk)10:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
User has been reverting several editors over the last few days. They've repeatedly removed material sourced from the Financial Times with no explanation given.Cambial—foliar❧16:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Per my talk page, "I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know." I'll do so immediately. I realize that some interpretations of "revert" can mean any editing at all. If someone thinks that's the best way forward, let me know.
BLP requires consensus for inclusion. Cambial Yellow has continued a long edit war rather than wait for or create consensus. --Hipal (talk)17:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
You haven't given a BLP-based objection for your deletion. In fact the only claimed justification you've offered for deleting material from the Financial Times is a vague allusion to "PROMO". You've not tried to justify your belief that the FT is promotional material. Regardless, that is not an ostensible BLP basis.Cambial—foliar❧17:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Hipal You have broken 3RR here, obviously BLP is a given reason to do this, but I cannot see why the material you are removing breaks our BLP rules. Can you explain this, please?
The article has a long history of pov problems which I've been trying to moderate for a long time now[250].
BLP states, "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I realize such reverts are far from the best way to address long-running problems. I've been trying to find more time to assess the remaining problems in the article to make a clear case at BLPN, as the NOT/POV/IS problems seem difficult for many to understand and address. Cambial Yellowing appears to want to work hastily, and reverse the onus required of BLP. My mistake for reverting as I've done today, as it appears to have incited him[251]. --Hipal (talk)17:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
None of the material you've removed is "unsourced or poorly sourced". You've not once mentioned that as a reason for removal of material from the FT, until now. That the source for the material you edit-warred over is a mainstream news publication, considered reliable here, and authored by the article subject, was pointed out to you several times on talk, in messages that you read and replied to. You did not suggest the material was unsourced or poorly sourced in response, nor did you give any BLP-based objection.Cambial—foliar❧18:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with diff 6 above. Four of the five remaining all indicate BLP as an area of concern, three of them indicating that consensus is required. --Hipal (talk)18:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
I believe a huge part of the issue is that Hipal is misinterpretingWP:FORUM's Primary Research policy to refer to using Primary Sources in general, when it is not. That policy is referring to using Wikipedia to directly publish new theories and research papers rather than publishing them in a peer review journal.
PerWP:SPS,WP:ABOUTSELF,WP:RSOPINION, andWP:PRIMARYNOTBAD; primary sources are not only allowable, but hold significant weight when it comes specifically to claims and beliefs made by the author of that source. This is especially relevant, given that the page that Hipal is repeatedly taking action on is an article about a person.
Until this misunderstanding is cleared up, Hipal will continue to take actions that don't follow Wikipedia policy while mistakenly thinking they are.GustavaKomurov (talk)15:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
IP has been edit warring to include various information relating to flights and other trivia. The dispute began on July 14 with their addition of trivia related to flights (Special:Diff/1300485476). In examining that edit, I noticed that the section as a whole had DUE and verifiability issues, and proceeded to remove it along with the addition. IPreinstated thematerialmultipletimes over the following weeks. On the talk page, I engaged, and called for 3O, which supported the removal. Since then, the IP has returned andcontinues to add in related flight trivia (in addition to the diffs in the beginning of the report). Previously (while waiting for the 3O) I had requested page protetion at RfPP, which was declined due to insufficient warnings, and was told to file an ANEW report if disruption persisted; here we are.signed,Rosguilltalk14:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Ideally, it wouldn't have been one single editor removing the content again and again; ideally, the talk page discussion result would have been implemented by at least one additional user. What we now have is an edit war with two, and only two, participants because noone else cared enough.
Rosguill, if this continues elsewhere or after the block, please notify me and I'll re-block. Instead of reverting on that specific page again, however, please simply let me know if you object to the new edits as well.~ ToBeFree (talk)18:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[253]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[254]
Comments: The user significantly edited theLord & Taylor article over the course of several days. A user flagged a promotional tone in the edits with a maintenance. I attempted to edit the article for a more neutral tone. Everybodywantsthis25 reverted this edit and removed the maintenance tag. Other users restored the tag, which they continuously removed and restored various promotional language. The editors involved engaged on the user's and the article's Talk pages to try to reach consensus.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[262]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[263]
Comments: I don't know if I'm doing this report right. But I did warn them with the proper warning before they made their 4th revert and I tried to discuss it.Master106 (talk)05:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Master106 have been engaging in slow edit-warring across multiple articles over the same recurring issue — whether Chloe is a main character. They've previously been blocked twice in the past year for similar behavior onList of Pokémon anime characters, which has since been redirected. Although they initiated discussion on the topic, they have not engaged meaningfully in consensus-building, and have continued reverting rather than participating in talk page discussions.Here's a link to the earlier discussion for context. I'm raising this to highlight that the pattern appears to be recurring, and not limited to a single dispute. I'd also like to highlight for the reviewing admin that while the user appears to limit themselves to one revert per day to technically avoid violating 3RR, they have engaged in multiple reverts across related articles — specifically, 4 reverts on Pokémon Master Journeys and 3 on Pokémon Ultimate Journeys (including partial reverts). I've provided the relevant diffs below.
I have learned from my previous experiences. And only followed 1RR and WP:Responding to a failure to discuss to a tee. I also know you weren't following WP:Consensus and instead Edit Warred. I tried to compromise, sorry I had to do this.Master106 (talk)05:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I participated in the discussion but you kept reverting instead of trying to reach consensus, you asked me to followWP:BRD but you never followed it yourself.Media Mender (talk)05:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Every revert I made under 1RR was followed by an invitation to discuss. This is how Wikipedia works, to have a consensus. You refused to discuss and come up with a consensus.Master106 (talk)05:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I never refused to discuss, I still replied you even tho I said I don't wanna argue with you cause we already had a long discussion over the same topic, you wanted to add Chloe back, I added her but you still partially reverted instead of discussing it.Media Mender (talk)05:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Replying and discussing are two different things. Also the topics are not the same. Similar yes, I wanted Chloe on the page. It only turned into the same topic because you turned it into it. You could have left her on the page or discussed it with me.Master106 (talk)05:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Pokemon is one of the subjects that I usually edit articles on. Most of the time it is the game series I edit. But I recently took a look at the TV Series page. Then I saw a specific sentence from the plot section was removed. So I did some poking around on other pages. Turns out Media Mender blanked any mention of Chloe from every article that mentioned her. I'll continue to try to talk to them in talk pages to try to get this situation resolved.Master106 (talk)17:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
The only reason I said "I had to do this" is because I didn't want to report a consistent editor, but I felt I was obligated to considering the situation.Master106 (talk)17:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
I acknowledge that I engaged in edit warring, and I understand that it was not the right way to handle the dispute, especially given my previous blocks. I should have relied more on discussion rather than reverting. I genuinely want to improve from this and will avoid repeating this behavior in the future. I respectfully ask for a chance to show I can follow proper consensus-building going forward.Media Mender (talk)11:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
@Untamed1910: The diffs you provide, are all edits (some reverts, some partial revert/edits of content, others just updates and additions)to different content, which can be seen by looking through them, including reasons explaining e.g. overlinking for three of them. You appear to be trying to make it look like I reverted back the same version five times, when I was just making different - and constructive - edits to the article. I acknowledged to you already that at theUEFA Women's Euro2022 final article I know I hit (but did not exceed) 3RR and then stopped, because of a user repeating an edit I had previously given a reason for removing, and calling me a vandal for my efforts. But I think you have misinterpreted 3RR with the diffs you provide in this report, as they are all distinct, constructive and explained edits. Also, I note that you gave me a warning, did not engage with my response, and seem to have come straight here without even waiting for the response - so have not actually attempted resolution before making the report.Kingsif (talk)00:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
HelloUntamed1910, there are two possible approaches to this report. One is practical and can be summarized as "blocks are not needed to deal with the situation"; the other possible approach is pedantically-technical: Please provide diffs of at leastfour reverts made byKingsif within 24 hours to the same article, content irrelevant but consecutive edits just count as one.Kingsif,Ikhouvanjou14 is not an idiot and might not even be male, so calling them"idiot" and"bro" is an interesting approach that suggests independently of any revert rules and without a block, you should still pause editing for at least a few hours.~ ToBeFree (talk)04:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
@ToBeFree: We all know there's no violation here, no merit to the report, that Untamed1910 has apparently come out of nowhere to (all within three minutes) tell me making four different edits breaks 3RR and threaten with a block; write "edit Warring is not allowed" at the talkpage in place of any valid communication; and post this here and then ignore it. It's the kind of report that you wonderwhy it was made more than anything. Without getting into the other guy, as I noted I did stop myself and that was four hours ago - do not worry.Kingsif (talk)04:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Kingsif, whether there's merit to the report or if it's an (are you implying intentional?) abuse of process isn't for you to assess; if you decide to reply, you should at least address the personal attack.~ ToBeFree (talk)04:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
(are you implying intentional?) I am not.isn't for you to assess perhaps not, but we all see it.at least address the personal attack irrelevant (to this noticeboard in general and topic specifically), but the user had called me a vandal at the very first instance I undid an edit I had previously explained was poor, and then reported me at AIV at the next. Now that I would call intentional abuse of process, which is reason for calling a duck a duck. And, you are mistaken on two fronts: it was Untamed1910 I referred to as bro, which is a gender neutral term.Kingsif (talk)04:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I was confused by the last signature in the removed message and thought you were replying to that. But while "bro" can perhaps, depending on who uses it where, include people of any gender, using it to address someone with unknown gender in an international community should probably be avoided as your interpretation of it as a "gender neutral term" is unusual enough bothetymologically andculturally to lead to confusion about what you meant. I'd even go as far as saying the term "bro" is more likely to be associated with misogynist ideas than with addressing women.
Untamed1910's AIV edit wasSpecial:Diff/1303292049, not making the initial report, so the report inIt's the kind of report seems to refer to this one here.Untamed1910 having learned something new about the three-revert rule seems more likely than an intentional abuse of process to me, though. The AIV report on the other hand was indeed completely absurd and an attack. I have no idea whatIkhouvanjou14 was expecting, looking at[271] and[272]. It seems to have been about[273]/[274], the latter of which is a misuse of the rollback permission.
IP edit-warring to change infobox image against talk page consensus, has been reverted by multiple editors. (added) Note that the change the IP is making is identical to that made byMossleegermany who was justblocked for sockpuppetry.Schazjmd(talk)14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[279] followed by[280]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[281]
Comments:
A slow roll initially with reverts over a couple of months, but three reverts today and no attempt to explain behaviour on either the user's talk page or the article talk page. --10mmsocket (talk)20:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
I have attempted to edit this article by adding links to it several times, only to haveUser:Trainsfan13 reverse my edits on every occasion, and tell me to stop making edits because "he said NO'. This user seems to have appointed themself the gatekeeper of this article, and that they have the final say on what should or should not be included in it. I believe that no one person owns or is the final arbiter of what edits should be allowed on a Wikipedia article, and certainly not when those edits are made in good faith to improve the article. I will say I believe I should have handled this situation better to begin with, and escalated the conflict to allow it to be resolved by a neutral party before it became an edit war. However, the edits I have made to this - and to other articles thatUser:Trainsfan13 has reversed - have been done in an attempt to improve the article, and are simply to add links to other Wikipedia articles mentioned within this article, thus improving the article as I have come to believe is appropriate. I find it highly inappropriate forUser:Trainsfan13 to act as if he owns this and other articles, simply because they are of a topic of interest to them.
Blocked – for a period of48 hours Partially blocked from the article.Acroterion(talk)15:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Page protected In full. For a week. Because I had to do this before a little over a month ago. And since we don't like to do this too much, if you come back here with another request in about the same amount of time I will just block both of you from the page indefinitely. I don't want that and neither do you. Get some other people involved in this discussion. Please.Daniel Case (talk)22:48, 7 July 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 completediffs.~ ToBeFree (talk)09:40, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Even if we consider the two editors to betag-teaming. I remind you all to stick to the talk page,preserve the status quo, and consider finding ways to bring more editors into the discussion.Daniel Case (talk)02:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. I will not, however, protect the page as that would bepre-emptive.Daniel Case (talk)05:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Already blocked. I rangeblocked them prior to this report being made. I've also restored semi-protection to the article which had expired.--Ponyobons mots23:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Given the user'sother vandalism andpersonal attacks, I was going to report them to AIV until I saw this. Given that the previous blocks have done little good, I believe an extended block is in order. --Sable232 (talk)13:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Warned —@206.83.98.234: normally this would still be blockable as you werealso edit warring over other parts of the article simultaneously (until your final edit). That said, you're absolutely right about citing thebiographies of living persons exception, and AI-generated images of living people (unless they're themselves notable in context, which doesn't seem to be the case here) are part of that policy. I would still recommend seeking the help of others in the future (for example on thebiographies of living persons noticeboard and/or the article's talk page) rather than repeatedly reverting, and definitely keep the content of the revertnarrowly specific to the BLP violation if you feel youabsolutely must repeatedly revert, otherwise you risk being blocked forthe other parts of the revert. --slakr\ talk /12:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Withdrawn.~ ToBeFree (talk)12:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)