12:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1307918881 byBelbury (talk) Again stop vandalising the article. All reliable sources have been mentioned. How come you don't understand Punjabi and Hindi are removing the sources regarding those @Belbury?. Straight vdandalism, hence restored."
12:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC) "Restored. Reliable sources have already been mentioned such as interviews, news articles. Please If you aren't aware regarding Hindi, Punjabi language and can't understand them I would highly request not to remove sources. Grammar, tone correction are welcomed."
Editor has heavily rewritten this biography without giving sufficient care to providing sources that match the statements being made.User:CNMall41 rolled it backexpressing concerns that the content may have been LLM-generated ("most of the sources I check do NOT add up to the content that is being posted"), which didn't get a clear response. Attempts by CNMall41 and I to edit the article to match the cited sources have been reverted ([1],[2]), the second as "vandalism", with Shink77asking us to instead confine our editing to grammatical and tone corrections of their own writing, while making personal attacks about being "right in the head".Belbury (talk)07:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Sensitive ahh kids. Editing an article and removing legit news articles and sources in Punjabi and Hindi while not be aware of what they mean cause he's an English man speaks volume in itself. Whatever agency has hired you to attack Mr. Singh's page can try their best but you still can't erase his legacy losers. Try being a bit more humble and neutral. Happy editing. Get a life.Shink77 (talk)09:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:14:06, August 25 - The IP initially added the murder/arrest to the "Armed conflicts and attacks" section.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
17:20, August 25 After@Dmhll: moves the murder to "Law and crime" (as noted in their edit summary, as arrests + murders and other single-victim crimes generally go under that header), the IP moves it back to the top of AC&A.
18:38, August 25 After I move it back to L&C, agreeing with Dmhll's rationale, the IP moves it back to AC&A.
21:13, August 25 After I move it to L&C again due to the unexplained revert, the IP adds it back to AC&A again. With this, they'd actually violated 3RR, but I couldn't bring it here as they hadn't been properly warned yet (albeit edit summaries had discussed why it shouldn't be there, which the IP ignored).
13:17, August 27 Over a day later, after Dmhll moves it back to L&C again on the same explained rationale as before (per the edit summary), the IP yet again moves it back to AC&A without discussion.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:21:54, August 25 - I add the 3RR warning to the IP's talk page after their third revert...
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:21:56, August 25 - ...with an additional comment about myself and Dmhll's edit summaries/reversions, which the IP failed to acknowledge.Dmhll also clearly warned them again in their last edit summary, acknowledging the talk page warning, with clear-as-day rationale as to why it shouldn't be in AC&A. The IP seemingly ignored this as well.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[9]This was the first talk page post about the situation made by@The Banner:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[10]
Comments: User began removing information from the table on the article. After being reverted and being told there was no evidence, user has continued to revert. Along with myself,@The Banner: and@Ivebeenhacked: have tried to explain topics such asWP:V andWP:BURDEN, but the user continues to revert. (VenFlyer98 (talk)17:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC))
Routes have ended with main airline services across the industry and they are continuing to undue changes to the system. They have not been able to prove the flights still exists besides saying "it just does" when you cannot in reality purchase a ticket. They also proclaim to say American Eagle flights are American Airlines flights when that simply doesn't exist. When bringing that up their only response is proclaiming "warring" which is their last resort because they know they are in the wrong on their information.Targetboy2498 (talk)17:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
That is whatyou claim but you provided no sources or other evidence at all for the edits. And in fact, you are systematically refusing to give sources. You even did not believeproof that a flight is still bookable. So,yes, I support the request for action.The Bannertalk18:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
As stated above I only claimed the routes ended, the evidence is through the lack of a ticket to purchase. The proof you had provided only showed American Eagle as a direct flight to ORD not American Airline Mainline. Your proof is deliberately false at this point. There is no action to be taken, other than leaving the edit as is.Targetboy2498 (talk)19:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
So there are no sources. And regarding "Your proof is deliberately false at this point.", I keep it atAmerican Airlines • Operated by Envoy Air AS American Eagle.The Bannertalk19:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to that conclusion. TheAmerican Airlines • Operated by Envoy Air AS isn't American Airlines Mainline. Its American Eagle operated by Envoy. Anything else is completely false.Targetboy2498 (talk)19:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
An obscure (but significant) question of terminology in naval gunnery. Compounded by an existing WP article being pretty poor and, of course, WP notever being WP:RS.
The editor copyedits in a GF change, but introduces an error.Breech blocks slide into the breech of an artillery piece. Artillery pieces with a screw breech instead use a breech screw. This is typically a question of size: BL (breech loading) artillery uses a screw breech with a shell and separate bagged charges of propellant, QF (Quick Firing) uses a one piece brass-cased cartridge. TheWelin screw breech is named similarly.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[15]
Comments:
I've encountered this editor before on a number of equally technical articlesThe Iron Bridge being the most memorable (see theTalk:). Each time they've come to an article with no real knowledge of the subject, but been adamant that their version is correct. No amount of sourcing will convince them otherwise. If an editor brings sourcing, it's dismissed as "just your personal opinion"[16][17] Nor have they improved over the years.
In this case they've been given a book source (probably the best widely available book on the subject), a Commons diagram of a contemporary artillery diagram, with names, and a link to another article whereBL 12 inch Mk IX#Bibliography is pretty much a standard reading list on the subject. They're not interested. They Know Best.
The underlying problem is thatWelin breech block is a poor and misleading article. Although it does long have at least one other source[18] with the correct naming. It would be nice if someone might have the time to rewrite this altogether (it should move toscrew breech, as there are more than the Welin pattern). But instead we just get our time wasted responding to groundless edit-warring like this.Andy Dingley (talk)00:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I strongly object to Andy Dingley's false characterisation of my behaviour - while admitting that I remain imperfect. In this case, my initial edit was to make the terminology in this particular article consistent with the Wikipedia page to which it referred. It's got nothing to do with my personal views at all - as Andy Dingley knows perfectly well. Andy Dingley changed the article - twice! - without providing a source to justify the edit. It was just on their say-so.
I've found an apparently reliable source to justify the terminology in question. "Screw breech block" seems to be correct terminology based on the sources I've found (I can cite more, if need be), regardless of Andy Dingley's personal views. I'd appreciate a bit less in the way of personal remarks and a bit more in the way of "assume good faith".
One clear source I found is:
{{cite web
|title=12 inch Mk X Gun Breech Mechanism : HMAS Australia (I)
|quote=The mechanism consists of the breech, and an interrupted screw breech block on a hinged mounting. [...] The Welin breech block was invented by Axel Welin in 1889 or 1890.}}Michael F 1967 (talk)00:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Per my commenthere, Andy’s idiosyncratic definition is simply wrong. And I see no reason to block anyone over four reverts in 3+ days.Parsecboy (talk)09:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Every time I've encountered you, you have edited in exactly the same way. You force some clueless opinion into an article, and are then utterly impervious to all sources presented to the contrary. Hodges isn't the only book I have on the subject, but as the generally agreed canon text on naval heavy artillery of this era, it's the only one I'm going to bother opening and giving you a literal page number for.[19] atTalk:Obturating_ring#Welin_breech_block_terminology.Cinderella157 (talk)01:25, 28 August 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. Per BB-PB above.Daniel Case (talk)17:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk page as the removals were unjustified and contrary to multiple sources.See,Comments. On my edit summaries ofMickey Hargitay History at 01:00, 28 August 2025 gave the information "editor did not provide an edit summary and, otherwise, no apparent reason to edit info supported in the article by a reliable source and, further, we use wikiarticle names" and at 04:36, 28 August 2025 stated "see edit 01:00, 28 August 2025" and at 04:59, 28 August 2025 the information "rv unconstructive Wikipedia:disruptive editing & edit warring". Also, user did not respond to the Warning 05:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC).
The entry reverted four times so far was supported by the lead andMickey Hargitay#Personal life: "In May 2025, Mariska Hargitay confirmed that singer-comedian Nelson Sardelli was her biological father, although she had believed Mickey Hargitay to be her biological father until she was 25.[13][14][15][16]"Quaerens-veritatem (talk)10:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of48 hours for three separate 3RR violations of the reported editor's edits as well as those of others. None of those reverts metthe exemption criteria. As for Rouncival, they only reverted twice. Statements of intent to edit war are sometimes probative, but since they didn't follow through in this instance, it is irrelevant.Daniel Case (talk)18:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Edit warring again after released from block. User has been warned several times, and won't stop. Doesn't seem to care from comments on his talk page.Magical Golden Whip (talk)00:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Sigh. I tried to give this user as much rope as possible but continuing to edit war after three blocks for that same reason, and utterly refusing to respomd to feedback or provide any sources is clear NOTHERE behaviour. User is now blocked indefinitely.CoconutOctopustalk06:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The full name issue has been discussed extensively in the past, with angreement toinclude the full name in the info box, and a majority of users were in favor of it, see reference2. above. Alyo has both been informed about and aware of the discussion at the time and their conclusion.
He unilaterally removed the sourced edit, contrary to a previous compromise reached in the dispute discussion mentioned above on user’s talk page that would retain the full name of the club in the info box:
See reference2. above, where Alyo himself offered to retain the full name in the info box, and ultimately reneged on it after some time when it went unnoticed.
Diff of warning that disruptive edits would lead to a report: [32]
Diff ofWP:ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page: [33]
Comments:Alyo consistently ignores the process of consensus forming and focuses solely on pushing hisWP:POV, with disregard toWP:ONUS,WP:CONSENSUS.
He conflates similar, but not identical elements to one, such asWP:COMMONNAME and branding/abbreviation versusWP:OFFICIALNAMES and full name; he uses rhetorical sleight of hand to dismiss other users’ points and numerous reliable sources brought forward, sometimes denying them outright, without providing verifiable sources himself for his claim.
The dismissal of sources extends to official social media presence and websites by the club in question itself. This behavior borders on, or might already constituteWP:OWN and is no longer inside the scope ofWP:AFG. Furthermore, while he has formally opened up a discussion on the article talk page, he reverted to his preferred edit before any debate with other editors has been initiated or even any sort of consensus has been established (again), ignoring the previous agreement (references above). This constituesWP:DIS to my view.2A04:4540:642B:3500:6D99:924E:E396:A4C9 (talk)
This is an edit warring noticeboard. I can undo my edit (again) to give us time to discuss, but I would like you to make these content arguments on the article's talk page instead of hopping IPs and only responding to reverts.Alyo(chat·edits)21:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Correct, I went through the previous discussions and don’t see how this can be resolved without a third party, given your conduct related to the issue. I have no control over how my ISP handles the assignment of IP addresses. -2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk)00:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)
I went and looked at the discussion on Alyo’s talk page, am I correct in understanding that they’re claiming what a team says about their own name can’t be used because it’s a Primary Source? And that Americans apparently just aren’t capable of understanding what FC stands for and all of them think it’s just meaningless words that teams put at the end of their name??MilesVorkosigan (talk)01:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
That would be the gist of it, yes. There are sources by current and former employees, business partners of the club etc etc, that use the spelled out name - all either »insufficient« or non-valid sources, according to him. Please also note how he has offered to revert his pov-pushing AFTER he was reported in order to »discuss« further, when said discussions have already taken place several times. He moves the goalposts, which is documented in the discussion here[34] (too long to read, but you can spot it just by skimming through), and assumes a position of authority where he exclusively decides what is correct or acceptable -> see modified hidden note in latest diff:[35], and in general the latest comments for his reverts and edits in the history. His response to my warning that I’ll report him if he keeps suppressing sourced edits is also telling:I’ve had this discussion many times before — you’re welcome to try to convince me.[36]. Due to the lack of good faith, this would be a futile attempt, as demonstrated in the previous discussions. --2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk)10:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)
Just to clarify, anon, have I had this discussion with you before? Are you one of the accounts who has previously edited the Atl Utd page or with whom I've had this discussion? This is not a gotcha question--I just want to know which points I've already made with you.Alyo(chat·edits)14:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@MilesVorkosigan no, the real answer is much more annoying--American soccer clubs copy the "FC" with no intention of calling their team a "Football Club" because of an appeal to (European) tradition and because it looks cool inFIFA. (Side note: There is no reason to call the team a "club" because in America, our sports organizations are not "clubs" in any way meant by that word in Europe or SA.) Obviously "FC" generally means "football club", but yes, in America the teams do sometimes attach meaningless letters to the end of their team names to appear more European. I cannot stress enough that I agree this is stupid. That said, thename of the team--what the article is about--is just "Atlanta United", or "Atlanta United FC" for branding purposes. The article really should be moved, because the precise name of the team in Major League Soccer, as outlined in the rules of the competition, is just "Atlanta United". No "FC", no "Football Club".Alyo(chat·edits)13:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
This all appears to be completely original research on your part. Have you ever found a single reliable source that says “Americans don’t know what FC means and just use it as letters”?
Again, this is an edit warring noticeboard, not a content mediation noticeboard. Why don't you bring some of this energy to the article talk page, where I'm currently talking to myself?Alyo(chat·edits)14:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Because this isn’t a content issue, this is a behavioral issue. You apparently have spent a year or more wasting multiple editors time withoriginal research. Persuading you that sources are needed doesn’t seem likely to work. The most efficient way for the encyclopedia to protect itself and save editor’s time seems to be a t-ban.MilesVorkosigan (talk)15:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Thecontent is now being discussed on the article's talk page, which is good.Focusing on content there is correct. In this regard,MilesVorkosigan is right to raise conduct concerns on a noticeboard rather than the article's talk page, but the edit warring noticeboard is unsuitable for it and conduct discussion doesn't resolve the current content conflict. So:
if, independently of this one specific content discussion, persistent behavioral issues exist, they can be discussed atWP:ANI withdiff links from more than just this article as evidence.
Unfortunately, I don’t see how yet another discussion would all of a sudden bring a different outcome. The user has already participated in discussions on this topic with various other editors, which is documented in the links I provided and which he also concedes - see here[42] and here[43]. Heviolated previous agreements, which I also documented.
The outcome and his behavior is always the same, so I have to strongly disagree - indulging him in another content-related talk is a waste of time. You can see inthis very thread/report that he makes claims which are evidently false (vulgo »lies«). This is bad faith discourse.
Ultimately, he always forces his ideas through. The impression of a delaying tactic on his part in order to maintain his position without agreeing to an acceptable solution has not been dispelled, on the contrary.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
I didn't discuss it on the article's talk page, granted. I did leave an elaborate explanatory edit summary at[54], and the user continues not to respond even after my additional remarks at[55] on their talk page, so it seems unlikely that the user would have responded on the article's talk page either. I'm filing this now despite seeing this requirement because otherwise it seems we'll be stuck: I won't revert their editagain becauseI don't want to be guilty of a 3RR violation, and if I don't then, if the user doesn't respond on the talk page, I can't show the user continuing to revert after seeing a discussion on the talk page.
Follow-up: See the comments section below.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[56]
User @Khogen2410 has reverted or deleted my review entries which are from WP: ICTF reliable sources without any reason. Not engaging on Talk page either.
Violates WP:3RR
Action requested: Please temp ban the user @Khogen2410
User Mariab777 was previously blocked for two weeks for exactly the same warring behavior at9 August 2025 (UTC). User has failed / refused to engage in Talk Page discussion. Previous two week block had absolutely no effect.Quaerens-veritatem (talk)01:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[65]
Comments:
1DHNK1 also attempted to remove source info in this article in 2022 and 2023[66][67]. They are falsely claiming that the citations they removed do not support the info[68]. They also posted this on my talk page[69]. They were blocked for edit warring (and personal attacks) back in 2019[70], though they rarely edit, having 224 edits since December 2018. If they were more consistent, I believe they would have been blocked more. --HistoryofIran (talk)11:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
The user reverted the most recent edit back to their previously preferred version. Earlier, they said it needed more sources, and now they came up with a new reason...JesusisGreat7☾⋆ |Ping Me14:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
08:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1308687744 byPatient Zero (talk) Really, do you want to stop? What fun is that? Your edits are being undone before your very eyes. Don't persist if you don't want to be banned for vandalism."
23:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1308681474 byThe Raincloud Kid (talk) Did you all perhaps suffer from dyslexia, or you simply don't care what I write? In any case, I've had enough, so stop it, calm down and clear your mind, because this constant defiance here on Wikipedia will not be tolerated."
15:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "roviding more context - source is primary source (Dominik Zynis) one of the cofounders of State Software who worked with Douglas Crockford"
15:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "providing more context - source is primary source (Dominik Zynis) one of the cofounders of State Software who worked with Douglas Crockford"
Has been claiming identity as "Dominik Zynis" and causing an edit war. I'm not in that edit war, but many people are trying to stop him. Also in his talk page two people warned him. And the person talked back saying HIMSELF was a primary source.Pнp13333332tαlk\edıts15:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I must apologize to have reverted this user four times. Also, I did not open a discussion on the talk page. Nevertheless, it is clear from edit summaries that this user considers that, in case of disagreement, this is their version that should prevails, and that they have not to explain the motivations of their change.D.Lazard (talk)16:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
All I asked was that you give more explanation than vague replies like "confusing" or "not an improvment". I did attempt to explain my reasoninghere andhere: the previous version does not explain how to go from the set-theoretic definition of "function" as a relation to the more common I was very clearin this edit that I am happy to fix it, if I could only understand your issue with it.–Farkle Griffen (talk)16:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
You're both edit-warring, and both blocked. Youboth tell the other to go to the talk page in your edit summaries. Why didn't either one of you actuallygo there? 3RR isn't an invitation to a game of chicken. When your blocks expire, please talk it out, as you both asked each other to do. --asilvering (talk)17:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
This user on this article keep restoring u sources claims and also insist on keeping a reference which is about a music artist with the same name but which is about a completly different person. The user keeps undoing the constructive edits.126.113.231.78 (talk)06:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Note: There is a pending RPP request for the article.
I initially attempted to reason with this IP hopper, but as noted on the article talk page, their personal attacks and tendentious deliberate misrepresentation of policy has expended my assumption of good faith, and their edits can only be regarded as disruptive editing. They are evidentlyWP:NOTHERE and only intent on removing content they don't like. --Paul_012 (talk)06:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
If people check the talk page they can see it's you who use. Personal attacks. I have pointed out ways to improve the article and there's no good reason for you to deny that opportunity. It's not whether I like the content or not. I'm neutral. But the content should reflect the sources and blog posts and Facebook articles and personal cvs should not be used as sources. And references that is not even about the person in question should be chnaged. I don't understand what's the problem with that to be honest. I'm here to improve the page, I hope you will do the same an cooperate.126.113.231.78 (talk)08:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
02:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC) "This is not my preferred version. This is objectively the unbiased version. There is already a Talk page subject open on this. Naturally, everyone involved abandoned it within a couple hours and nothing ever changed. Because that's the goal."
02:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC) "The Talk page only exists for you people to pretend you have any actual interest in avoiding bias. You lock the article, post a short and inconclusive smattering of posts in the Talk page, and then unlock it while the bias remains."
02:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC) "There is nothing to "fix." The removed text is actively taking a political side. Wikipedia has a very clear non-bias standard to uphold. If you think the text can somehow be "fixed," then refusing to do so shine a light on your unwillingness to do it."
After the previous protection expired, an IP editor (from the same IP range) has returned to edit war over the same reception section thatled to the original block/protection on 22 August 2025. Originally posted a request atWP:RPPI before the IP editor crossed 3RR.Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC) (Added link to the original reportSariel Xilo (talk)02:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC))
+1 Only edit history is removing a single sentence in the article, has been warned multiple times, refuses to resolveX2step (talk)03:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
+2 I have also reverted this exact edit twice. They are clearly not interested in discussion and are only interested in pushing their point of view; on top of anything else I think a semi-protect for an extended period is warranted at this point to at least try to push a discussion. -Umby 🌕🐶(talk ·contribs)03:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I had reverted their edits three times. Frankly I am not testing the waters and get warned myself. They clearly don't want to do a meaningful discussionFelicia(talk)03:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Result: I have blocked the IP's /64 range two weeks for edit warring. A previous semiprotection on August 22 appeared not sufficient to deal with the problem. The IP's opinion that the article contains 'subjective bias' does not fall under any of the exceptions from the edit warring policy. Whan the article quotes what critics have said, that seems to be a normal thing to do in a film article. I can't discern any BLP issue.EdJohnston (talk)04:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Repeated reversion of edits and edit warring, usually accompanied by accusations of working for the IRGC. Also in general the userscontributions have a very large fraction of reverts. They even tried to revert a Talk message on this pages talk. On an unrelated note: theygamed the system by making the same edit of adding Worlodmeter map to 62 articles about Asia's highways and roads (while having never edited any article related to that topic) in a span of 30 minutes to get to extended confirmed status.AlexBobCharles (talk)13:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
We can continue our discussion in the Talkpage. I was protecting that article against you. I didn't even added that content. You are trying to enforce your view but that's not going to happen. This is Wikipedia notHamas television or website.Edard Socceryg (talk)23:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
They are performing nationalistic POV edits to infoboxes. They are being rolled back, and comments are being made, but this particular user continues regardless. They have performed three edits toFort Bowyer within the last 24 hours.
Please view this editor's history.
Pretty much everything they do is disruptive. Many editors have requested that LGD cease, but to no avail.
Result: Blocked five days. LucyGermanDog has been here since 17 July but a surprisingly large fraction of their edits are being reverted. They almost never discuss. This block might be lifted by any admin if the user will agree to wait for consensus in the future. If there is no improvement an indef should be considered.EdJohnston (talk)16:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
As per a comment elsewhereit may be appropriate to consider a TBAN from editing infoboxes until they gain more experience as an editor.
The user's sole reason for using wikipedia does seem to POV driven. As much as editing infoboxes is a change that will take place periodically, sticking a POV in an infobox, whilst there is no substantive evidence in the body of the article in support of a stance in an infobox, is bad. If they can get access to reliable sources, to make changes to the articles, and thereafter the infobox, all well and good.
It is good that two minutes prior to the ban, an effort to discuss was made for the first time on the talk page, but this needs to continue, in order that subsequent edits are not as disruptive as what had been occurring.Keith H99 (talk)16:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of24 hours The edits do not come underWP:3RRNO, so thisboomeranged on the reporter. Edit warring here is especially egregious since this conceivably comes undera contentious topic area (I will be tagging the talk page appropriately). It is also aggravated by having continued as talk page discussion was ongoing in flagrant ignorance ofWP:STATUSQUO.The proper remedy was to haverequested protection, probably full protection, before anyone crossed the line so that things could be resolved on the talk page, perhaps with the addition of other editors to better reach a consensus. From further review of the talk page, it does look like some sort of consensus was reached. But that does not change the fact that actionable edit warring took place.Daniel Case (talk)21:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
10:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "I added Asian Europe parts and also mentioned Western Russia as Eastern Europe the natural line that make Asian Russia different from European Russia. Actually Eurasia if we combined."
Anikmolla786 has spent the last few days changing the map atUnited Nations geoscheme to their own uploads for unclear reasons. After requests from multiple other editors that I added to with a formal warning, their most recent edit summary is effectively trolling.CMD (talk)09:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Serious problem with OceanLoop's attitude (Result:Declined; take to AN/I)
On 26 August I added 2 links to the "Le Rêve (opera)" page. Then I added a note (which contains a clickable link to my source) and a second note (also with my clickable source). I then added the Summary section, a clickable link to my source (note 2 : Arthur Pougin, Le Ménestrel : [1] on Gallica), and two hours later the Music section, starting by "Arthur Pougin" - obviously using the same source as above.
OceanLoop then deleted the Music section and justified his action with one word : "uncited". This was an obvious error. He immediately proceeded to delete the Summary section, containing the clickable link to my source, and wrote : "not supported by references" - which is a blatant error.
I reverted both of OeanLoop's reverts and wrote : OceanLoop did not see my SOURCE but there is one. + I did provide a source : Ménestrel which is one of the best sources possible here. Then OceanLoop deleted the Music section again, and wrote: there are zero references in this revision. please use Talk if you need help citing sources" - and he left the Summary section which he had at first deleted too. The Music section has the same source as the Summary section, and this should be obvious to just about anyone. So I reverted OcaenLoops revert and wrote : "The source is the same as in the other section, it is the same author. You only need ONE click to check." OceanLoop deleted the Music section again, and wrote " stop edit warring. your contributions do not comply with Wikipedia guidelines. " I finally logged in to my account (Rouncival) because things were getting serious, but that didn't change anything. OceanLoop kept deleting the Music section, and wrote " Use words and Talk to discuss disagreement, do not edit war " - I really wonder what I had been doing all this time, to no avail. I finally wrote that I did want an edit war to put an end to a useless confrontation and hear the opinions of other people. I had no idea how I would do this, but I could see no other way out of the deadlock.
Finally, OceanLoop added a "This section does not cite any sources" banner which is still there. I think this is the first thing he should have done if he had any doubts, rather than deleting my contributions. Then, OceanLoop reported me for an edit war, which did not lead to a broader exchange about my contributions, as I had expected. Instead, I was banned for 48 hours without the opportunity to defend myself.Before this happened, I added a note at the beginning of the Music section with a clickable link to my source (the same one mentioned above—this note was deleted by OceanLoop) and a Source section with the same source again, without the [] brackets, so one could easily read the entire link and see that there IS a link. This useless section is still online. I tried to delete it afterwards as well as the useless banner, but OceanLoop reverted my changes.
Currently, the Wikipedia page onLe Rêve displays the page exactly as I completed it -- although OceanLoop wrote earlier that "your contributions do not comply with Wikipedia guidelines". There is a banner above the Music section that reads "This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2025)" AND a Source section with the clickable link to my source… The Summary section that OceanLoop initially deleted appears untouched.
I think OceanLoop has been incompetent, malevolent and contemptuous. He chose to harass me rather than admit his initial error. Throughout the many hours wasted on this (from 11 pm on the 27th to 4 pm on the 28th), OceanLoop has had ample opportunity to change his behaviour - and instead decided to mislead other admins into banning me for 48 hours. I am convinced that OceanLoop is now going to go to great lengths to have me banned before a well-meaning admin has time to read this. I am taking the risk because the harm OceanLoop did to me, he has probably done to others before, and will likely do again if left to his own devices.
I may have been very clumsy, but I didn't know what else to go. I got the "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection" message once I had been banned. It would have been useful much earlier…
Hi @Rouncival. I'm not an administrator but I think I might have some context you're not aware of. You might be aware of the first part of this, but please keep reading just in case there's stuff in here you're not familiar with. On Wikipedia, you're not allowed to edit war, which means reverting back to your preferred version despite objections from others. Thethree-revert rule, which basically says "reverting an article to your version 3 times in 24 hours", is a commonly-used measuring stick to determine if someone is edit warring. It's true that the editor you're talking about made a report, butthey were also blocked because they were edit warring. Administrators on Wikipedia are clever and will look closely at everyone's contributions in any scenario like this. Both of you edit warred -- whether on purpose or not -- and both of you were temporarily blocked. Now we can move on. My advice to you would be to just be more careful about reverting back and forth, and if you have acontent dispute, considerseeking solutions for dispute resolution by clicking this link and reading the info, as the noticeboard you and I are on right now does not mediate content disputes. Take care --tony15:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Tony, Thank you for your advice. The link you provide is exactly what I needed during the dispute. I may have been particularly dense, but I could not find another way to break the deadlock. OceanLoop is, I suppose, expected to have a better knowledge of how things work on W. but he was decidedly not helpful.
I'll know better next time - but I'm not sure there will be a next time, Im really frustrated, and you are the first and only one on Wikipedia to have offered a helping hand. Thank you very much. Take care, R.Rouncival (talk)15:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Declined Take this to AN/I. I'm sorry to see that my recent block of OceanLoop does not seem to have helped the situation between you two.Daniel Case (talk)22:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
The userUser:Limegreencoral is edit warring on the articleMogadishu. Initially, I gave him the benefit of the doubt as he started engaging with me on the talk page (Talk:Mogadishu - Wikipedia), but he stubbornly reverted the contested material again[95] which he has no consensus for. I have warned him on his personal talk page. Moreover, I want to add this user has a history[96][97][98] of engaging in edit warring with users.AzanianPearl (talk)11:24, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I did not do the last revert. That was administrative action done reverting to the Aug 20 version of the article for a consensus to be reached on the talk page.Limegreencoral (talk)11:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I am aware, but my complaint is about the revert AFTER we engaged in the talk page,[99] which I find completely lacking in wiki etiquette. Moreover, you have a track record of this kind of behavior.[100][101][102] I'll let the admins decide what to do you with you.AzanianPearl (talk)11:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment This appears to be a tit-for-tat report in response toWP:AN/I#User:AzanianPearl. Also, if sanctions are taken for edit warring on past behaviour and not future edits from this point forward, both editors should be sanctioned. —C.Fred (talk)11:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
My primary complaint is regarding this particular revert, made long after talk page engagement took place.[103] I mention his prior behavior as it may give admins an insight in what sort of a person he is.[104][105][106]AzanianPearl (talk)11:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
@C.Fred I also want to add that the Mogadishu etymology material may have been targeted via recruitment through Reddit. While I cannot prove that @Limegreencoral was recruited for this reason, I want to add this to the case and let admins decide on this matter. See this link.[107]Our history is now being targeted on Wikipedia, completely false claims of Mogadishu having Jewish origins because "Muqdisho sounds close to a Hebrew word". I want to warn before clicking that it containsantisemitic commentary. To state my conflict of interests upfront, I myself am not Jewish, I'm Somali, but I am against antisemitism or any other form of ethnocentrism or racism.AzanianPearl (talk)14:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Earlier you accused me of possibly being antisemitic for removing yourWP:SYNTH edits, now I may be part of some targeted reddit post? I only removed all your original research because a user on the talk pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mogadishu#Etymology_of_%22Muqdisho%22_(Mogadishu)_%E2%80%93_Request_for_sourcing_and_revision mentioned it and I took a look the next day and noticed you were completely diverting from what the source you cited said. You were even making things up such as a supposed Sarapion temple. If I was making targeted edits I would've removed the claim entirely which I didn't. I expanded the section, and specifically mentioned the book you cited and exactly described what it said.Limegreencoral (talk)14:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Look at the timing, these are likely meat puppets (WP:MEAT) recruited via Reddit. One of them even admitted to this that they posted on the talk page as an IP (lacking a wiki account) directly as a consequence of the meat-puppetry-educing Reddit thread. I no longer care about Mogadishu's etymology as this is clearly too time consuming to battle on my own. Nevertheless, I want to inform the administrators that potentialmeat puppetry has occurred as a result of that Reddit thread[108] and possibly elsewhere on social media.AzanianPearl (talk)15:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't know anything about a reddit post and I have nothing to do with that. Like I said, if I had an agenda I would've just removed the claim entirely like a user was suggesting on the talk page. What I did remove was your made up stuff about Sarapion, the original research part about a specific temple, and the Q-D-S stuff. None of this was mentioned inAn Azanian Trio which is the source that was cited.
The IP requested the entire Hebrew claim be removed, and if you check I commented "As for the etymology, there are different theories for the name, so if you want to add another cited view, you can do that." Afterwards I added to the section and quoted the book for the Hebrew claim. Not sure what you're trying to link me with.Limegreencoral (talk)15:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll let the admins decide. It is up to them to judge. The timing when you and like-minded individuals appeared to edit the etymology material isafter that Reddit thread, which doesn't help your case.AzanianPearl (talk)15:14, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I will reiterate one last time since you've turned this into something entirely different.
1. I did not see any reddit post, I only responded to a talk page request a day later.
2. I did not in any way alter the Hebrew theory. If anything I specifically mentioned the book and the rabbi chronicles.
You can claim that all you want, but it is up to the admins to judge. You showed upafter that Reddit thread. If only I was aware of this earlier, I would have filed ameat puppetry case instead. Meat puppetry is a serious violation of wiki etiquette. This will be my final comment to you until an admin processes this.AzanianPearl (talk)15:56, 2 September 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 by my esteemed administrative colleagueC.Fred above, this seems to be a purely retaliatory report. I advise both editors to tread carefully given that this article is already semi-protected as coming under acontentious topic area (WP:CT/HORN)Daniel Case (talk)22:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[116]
Comments:
May not technically be a 3RR breach, but clearly a violation of its spirit, with four reverts in a 26-hour span, followed by a fifth one the next day, and shows no signs of stopping or abiding by community consensus. Note the timing of how the last two reverts were performed after they were warned on their talk page. In addition to the general edit-warring behavior, they have been circumventing an AfD consensus by doing so. If the user self-reverts, I am willing to withdraw this report.Left guide (talk)21:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I asked them to go to the talk page and gave explanations on edit summaries
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:diff
Comments:
IP did similiar activity previously in August. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the film, such that they remove the name Steamboat Willie because they don't seem to know that the character is nicknamed AND credited as that, plus removing other character plot developments under the veil of conciseness. These edits are also introducing grammatical and punctuation errors. Following warnings, they've switched IPs, deliberately or not is unknown, but they are brute forcing it and it isn't the first time it's happened. I have requested Page Protection but to head off future activity I felt this was necessary to establish a record.Darkwarriorblake (talk)18:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Oddly enough, the filer cross-posted the same issue both to here and the protection request page (which is where you responded). I've clerked your actions in the header here.Left guide (talk)05:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
20:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision by Augmented Seventh. Edit warring and failure to address improper behavior by other users, previously notified."
20:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC) "The information is not relevant. Users need to do their research before making edits. Please stop edit warring. Thank you."
20:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC) "User Toohool is edit warring, reverting in bad faith. Tyson vs. Douglas and Bowe giving up his belt occurred several years later and are not connected to the unification series."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
I noticed an IP hopping edit disagreement beginning on august 31st, where the editor in question delineated a cut-off time applicable to the event described in the article, with an accurate summary describing reasoning; a long-time interested editor reverted to their prefered version with a different time delineation.
This began a mild back and forth, with the editor in question each time using the edit summary to explain their still unsourced reasoning. Various editors responded, with seemingly disingenuous replies from the editor in question.
Thanks! Now would be a great time for 2600:8800:41A8:D700::/64 to join the discussion, provide their arguments against inclusion, and perhapsPro-anti-air,Toohool,Discospinster could also take a moment to state their position. If 2600:8800:41A8:D700::/64 provides no convincing arguments, I'd say the content can be restored and the page can be semi-protected if the talk page discusion is ignored.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Mh. Thanks for the clarification. The user had provided a reason in the two edit summaries before that edit and was in the middle of an edit war, so that revert, uh, wasn't exemplary.~ ToBeFree (talk)01:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
05:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC) "Under review on commons. Meanwhile: Violates Privacy - not consented to screenshots to be distributed under CC, only consented to seminar. Presence here creates issues for subject."
05:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC) "Violates Privacy - not consented to screenshots to be distributed under CC, only consented to seminar. Presence here creates issues for subject."
16:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC) "Violates Privacy - not consented to screenshots to be distributed under CC, only consented to seminar."
This user is removing the same image from the article, and has been doing so multiple times over the last week. The image appears to be appropriately licensed, and deletion discussion is ongoing on Commons. Despite this, the user has continued to remove the image from the article for vague reasons, mostly related to its presence creating "issues for the subject", despite being warned via usertalk and edit summaries to discuss in the article talk page and/or the Commons deletion discussion. -Umby 🌕🐶(talk ·contribs)05:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
I would like to clarify the reasoning behind my edits.
Privacy & Consent Concerns: The individual depicted is a living person, and per [WP:BLPPRIVACY] and [COM:PEOPLE], consent to be photographed or to appear in a seminar isnot the same as consenting to indefinite, third-party redistribution under a free license. There is a clear distinction between contextual participation in an event and permanent hosting under CC licenses.
Ongoing Commons Deletion Discussion: The image is already under review at Commons. Until a decision is reached, continued use in the article exposes both Wikipedia and the subject to potential privacy and consent violations. Removing the image in the interim is a protective, not disruptive, action.
Engagement with Process: I have explained these concerns on the article talk page, and my edit summaries were consistent in stating the basis (privacy, consent, BLP issues). This is not a matter of “vague reasons” but grounded in core BLP policy, which takes precedence over licensing questions.
No Intention of Edit Warring: My edits were made in good faith to prevent potential harm while the Commons discussion is unresolved.
To clarify: my edit summaries consistently stated the privacy and BLP concerns motivating the removals. While I accept that edit summaries are not a substitute for full discussion, it is inaccurate to say I gave “no explanation.” The concerns were clearly flagged each time. I will now expand this on the article talk page so the policy basis is documented in the appropriate venue, but the underlying point remains - these are substantive BLP/privacy issues, not vague objections.Integrity editor (talk)08:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
@Black Kite, uninvolved third party here. I would have done differently and either warned or blocked Umby with the rationale of erring on the side of caution during an open deletion discussion regarding a photo of a BLP. As a young editor, I would like to understand your reasoning here if you are willing to give it.Xan747 (talk)18:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I take those as specific cases but not limited to cases of being contentious. IOW spirit not letter of the law. Now to be fair, the video from which the still was taken is licensed on Commons such that derivative works, like a frame grab, should be allowed. But with an open AfD on the derivative image, I would have erred on the side of caution. And issued warnings to all of the editors reinserting the image to the article (I confess to having missed that fact before my first response).Xan747 (talk)19:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
@SarekOfVulcan my tally is that four different editors reverted @Integrity editor to restore the image a total of six times. The only edits all four of them have on this article are those reverts, with the only reasons given that the image is properly licensed. Then you reverted me after I announced here my intention to remove it, and that too is your only edit on this article. I'm sorry but none of this feels like a carefully considered consensus to me.Xan747 (talk)01:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Erick has been edit warring across multiple pages, breaking 3RR on one of them and ignoring opposition to their edits from other users on the talkpage of another.
3RR was broken atFreedom Bloc (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views), where they repeatedly reinstated unsourced content:[119][120][121] (this one had a misleading edit summary as they reinstate everything)[122] (this edit summary was also misleading as much of the material being readded was still unsourced)
Iadvised them they had broken 3RR at Freedom Bloc and requested a self-revert. Conveniently there were no more edits until today when they returned to reverting on the other two pages listed above. Theywere also warned at the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic that their conduct would get them blocked.Number5723:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[123]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[135];[136]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[137]
Comments:
I was recently accused on the article's talk page by this editor of falsifying history, as well as being from Serbia or North Macedonia, which is quite strange since I have noted on my personal Wikipedia page that I am from Bulgaria. On my personal talk page, the same user points me to a link to an amateur YouTube film that he believes is a reliable source for his claims, which is also strange.Jingiby (talk)13:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
You can state in your bio that you are from the moon but it does not make it so. Please point from where are your claims that Romania exists in the IX century. There is not a single source that supports your claim of Romania existing in this time period the closest you can get is Valachia existing in the XIV century. As for the Magyar migration the only possibility of territories lost beyond the Danube are in the North-West. I have presented several maps that show the potential loss of territories beyond the Danube while you only keep reverting to a map showing Romania in that time period. The amateur you-tube film I have given a link towards is the official youtube channel of the Bulgarian Historian Society. Additionally I have presented a link towards World history encyclopedia's views on the time period.Overlord300 (talk)14:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Have worries about the citing of sources onMohamed Mooge Liibaan and added these worries to the talk page an various similar ips but... keep being reverted. Some help or advice might be welcome. Is this the right place - sorry if not.
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.Daniel Case (talk)03:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not relevant; IP address without history of using talk page. Suspect logged out established user based on policy argumentation.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[144]
Comments: Despite redirect being kept at RfD and restored at DRV, IP address believes the redirect should not exist, and is blanking it repeatedly. RFPP has also been requested, but that's likely to be declined since just one editor appears to be doing this against consensus.Jclemens (talk)06:45, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
"When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."
NatGertler deleted on good-faith BLP objectionshere. The burden of consensus is on inclusion. Start a RFD but it shouldn't be re-added until a consensus forms.37.153.152.31 (talk)06:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: I don't want to state a preferred diff since I was also edit warring (though not 3RR).Here is a diff to before I was involved.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[151]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[152]
Comments: Specifically on the edits here.
This figure is completely uncited so I removed it
The claims and ref are solely based off primary sources so I attributed them. NPguy does not want them attributed.
If you look at the link, this three pillars is OR. The source does not say that. Also this whole section is only based on primary sources.
This started with NPguy and I disagreeing about using Safety, Safeguards, and Verification as not synonymous terms. That then got overshadowed by the fact that NPguy's points on the talk page and the actual body of the article that discusses this stuff are only supported by primary sources.
Declined as stale. The last edit in this cycle was five days ago — perWP:BLOCKP, I do not think anything would be accomplished by a block now even if it had been merited at the time.Daniel Case (talk)03:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
From my perspective,Czarking0 has been dogmatic and inflexible and has repeatedly persisted and escalated the edit warring and refused to pause and engage in substantive discussion on the talk page. I would welcome an impartial review of the appropriate use of primary sources and the interpretation of theWP:ABOUTSELF guidance.NPguy (talk)18:12, 7 September 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. It would also be helpful if, should you file these reports in the future, you fill in all the requested information.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
User is a disruptive IP hopper who has been removing content across various articles, claiming flimsy or false reasons for their removals, and then continuing to remove the content even when references have been added and their reasoning rejected, showing that they are only here to remove content and have no genuine intent to build an encyclopedia. Attempts at discussion only result in them bludgeoning and derailing the discussion, attacking other editors, and continuing with their tendentious editing. User is aware of the edit warring policy, as they previouslytried to report me while using a different IP.Paul_012 (talk)13:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
This is not true. I'm not the one that edit warring. I removed and improved the sources. For example, in one article, there are claims in the article which cannot be found in the reference. I am open to discuss it on the talk pages, but Paul is not interested in communicating, which is sad. I want to improve the articles together, would be much appreciated. The problem is that the user Paul occasioanlly use refrences like blog posts etc, and other times misrepresenting what the source actually says. Paul doesn't own the pages.220.147.123.41 (talk)13:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
And it does appear that Paul and the Fantastic Fox account, is the same person. They express themselves in a similar way, etc. As I said, I want to discuss the improvements in the talk page and reach conclusion there but, Paul is not interested in it, despite other users also questioning him, see Ammar Siamwalla article. In that article he refuses to let me remove a reference to a completely different person who is a music artist with the same name, but who obliviously is a different person. Please check the history and that the edits are actually constructive. Biographies of living people should be held to a high standard, and it's important that the information is correct.220.147.123.41 (talk)14:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
You are still edit warring not on a specific page, but against a specific editor, as well as casting baseless aspersions. SeeWP:BRD. I find it oddly offensive that someone says I express myself in a similar manner to others.Fantastic Mr. Fox15:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
This is my response:
I was looking at the way you and him was writing, and I notice similarities in style. Both of you edit same pages with short interval etc. Those pages that you went into and reverted my edits, are not very well visited, so it's obvious you're probably same... You're also both obviously British.
Problem is that Paul doesn't want to participate in the discussion in the talk pages. In the Ammar page there was a consensus to remove several bad sources. But I'm very open to discuss and cooperate with Paul, if he/you would be open to it.
Then again, when something is obviously wrong, I don't see anything wrong with correcting it immediately, but if there's disagreement, why not take it at the talk page? I would appreciate that.
And I'm not mass reverting. It's actually the opposite! I'm making edits, then he is reverting my edits. I don't do vandalism, as you know, I do three things.
1.Adding sources where it is missing.
2. Removing bad sources.
3. Correcting claims based on existing sources.
It just happens that Paul follows my edits around and revert them... So happy if the situation could be solved in civilised manner on the talk pages.220.147.123.41 (talk)15:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Also how did User Fantastic Mr. Fox know that there is a noticeboard discussion here? It is rather obvious... User Fox haven't got a message about this. Also, since a lot of these pages are biographies about living people, it is very important that all claims are well sourced and not misrepresented. It is wiki policy.220.147.123.41 (talk)15:20, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
And how come you reverted my edits, on pages that are rarely visited, in a very very short time after Paul had done it? Usually it can take weeks between edits or even months on these pages, but you edited several, just after Paul. I don't think it is a coincidence. Checking your history, you have been blocked several times, been involved in countless edit wars, and suspected of sockpuppetry in the past. Would appreciate if you would put same energy on actually contributing positively, correcting sources and finding new good ones.220.147.123.41 (talk)15:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
The answer is because you appeared in the filter log that I use track vandalism and I noticed you made multiple edits in a row that tripped the edit filter. I reverted two of them because they appeared there. As for the rest of your comments, I have already corrected
Strange, that you never edited those pages before and then suddenly showed up there.
I haven't done any vandalism. Also, the amount of edits I did was very few, so woulnd't be enough to trigger any "filter." I think admins can see through this pretty easily. I would give you some advice then; contribute positively and only use one account.220.147.123.41 (talk)15:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
This specific revision made by you[153] was in fact publicly tagged as "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" which prompted me to revert 2 (yes, 2!) of your reverts, and I didn't try to reinstate them. If you don't know how logs work and how they are used to track problematic edits, that is squarely on you.Fantastic Mr. Fox15:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
So it's a coincidence that Paul has disappeared from the discussion? And that you and him have overlapping interests?
Regarding the word "squarely", both you and Paul are obviously British. It's too many coincidences here. Pretty obvious. If you're so interested in the pages, will you please take a look at the edits I made, then you would see that the edits are based on fact. You also want to improve the biographies I suppose? Great, in that case. Please take a look!220.147.123.41 (talk)15:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
It's also interesting that you have don't regularly revert any other so called random edits before this, if it is true that you keep track of things like this. Very interesting...220.147.123.41 (talk)15:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Ok at this point anybody can look at my edit history and take apart any of your alleged "arguments" that I am sock ofPaul 012. It is in my belief from this discussion that you are here with axe grind other editors that opposed to your editors, since you are now dropping allegations of sockpuppetry that can be disproven very quickly via checkuser. I guarantee the changes you are seeking to make will be more likely if you follow my advice and you will be having more fun than you are now.Fantastic Mr. Fox16:09, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. Full protected for 1 week. Take it to the talk page, guys. Currently there iszero discussion about this there, and the above bickering doesn't belong on this noticeboard (or anywhere else). ~Anachronist(talk)16:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Comments: The IP is very likely a sockpuppet of the indeffed accountsUser:R.Saringer andUser:AustrianFreedom. The article was created mostly by these two accounts and by several IPs in the range2001:4BB8:0100::/40. It is almost entirely unsourced. It also contains many irrelevant and incomprehensible sentences, especially in the lead. A few days ago, I removed the cruft and reverted the article to a somewhat cleaner revision, but now the IP returned and put the stuff back in. I tried to reason with the IP on the article talk page, provided links toWP:RS etc., and posted several warnings, but didn't get any useful response.
Before I go to bed let me say this. Editor Cortador has made multiple reverts on two different editors in the last 24 hours. He knew I would bring this to administration (because I told him so on the talk page) if he did it again, which he did. Another editor who reverted Cortador brought this to the talk page atTalk:2025 US Open (tennis) and Cortador has yet to convince anyone of it's worthiness, and I told him he needed to gain consensus. I know he has a massive track record of escalating blocks and warnings, and now I see why. He mainly edits political pages and I guess he thought he could bully anything into the US Open page with no consequences and no consensus for addition. I'm not sure why I am here but there it is. One of the things he listed was me re-adding an IPs removal of the word "Boos." Goodness. I'll check back in 12 hours to see where this has landed editor Cortador. I didn't come in at the beginning of editor Cortador's edit warring but I'll certainly stick around for the end of it.Fyunck(click) (talk)09:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Kalpesh, the jig is up. Your edits are entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy and after all of these warnings your behavior is unjustifiable and unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. From here on out, every time I see you adding content that is unsourced, sourced to deprecated websites, or sourced to irrelevant citations, I am going to immediately revert it.SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions)08:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
And I'll continue to add legitimate information with proper sources to Wikipedia articles. I have no vendetta against you. I'm requesting you to stop your disruptive behaviour.Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk)08:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Keep telling that to yourself. Also you have removed insignia image files uploaded to other wiki projects like wikimedia and wiki commons from wikipedia article pages.
If you are not a troll why you don't also vandalise Russian military articles based upon same sources also. You never remove any information from any of those articles based upon similar premise.Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk)09:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment as a third party observer. Please refer to above articles to determine who is committed vandalism on those articles and repeated removed sourced informations.Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk)09:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, so it's not vandalism. 3RR can be ignored when it comes to fighting vandalism, but not for content disputes like these. Therefore it doesn't really matter who was originally at fault here. —Czello(music)09:15, 12 September 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 report is incomplete anyway.Daniel Case (talk)01:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[166]
Comments:User seems to have a misinformed and erroneous idea of how film distribution and production companies work. Their supposition is that "presents in opening or closing credits = distributor". Nickelodeon Movies isn't a legal film distributor, especially where the MPA is concerned. The Paramount Pictures Corporation is. Search any film in the official film ratings database to see what I am talking about. to see what I am talking about. Further more to go by that logic, New Line Cinema is the distributor of its recent films, not Warner Bros. Marvel films are distributed by Marvel themselves, not Disney etc etc.Zingo156 (talk)11:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
(Update) User is now resorting to ad hominem attacks as you can seehere andhere. Also they refuse to engage in proper discussion as you can seehere andhere. Not just that, but their scrubbing their tracks, including deleting commentsON MY talk page.Zingo156 (talk)12:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours None of the edits violated 3RR but ... the warring was persistent, and the attitude (see above) and incivility didn't help.Daniel Case (talk)02:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
18:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC) "/* Creational patterns */ RAII is a code snippet not an SDP. It doesn’t abstract a reusable design across languages or paradigms. It’s not portable."
In the talk page Moti Barski specifically rejects our policies (especiallyWP:NOR) and has been edit warring to include a mention of their project with a link to their website. I suspect aWP:NOTHERE block is applicable as well. -MrOllie (talk)19:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hours and from the page for a month (my first use of the multiblock capability I had long agitated for. Yay!) Page further extended-confirmed protected indefinitely and logged at CTOPS under GENSEX.Daniel Case (talk)02:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure how to go about this, i feel the user is the subject of the article themself, and i am just concerned with how the article is going if allowed to keep insisting on a primary source that is somewhat controlled by the subject, and links to amazon books published with OmniScriptum/Lambert Academic Publishing.WikiPidge (talk)08:44, 12 September 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. I will give them the appropriate warning. You should probably also bring this up atWP:COI/N.Daniel Case (talk)02:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
08:27, 12 September 2025 (UTC) "Removing deliberate vandalism by BlueboyLINY. Discussion of content is unnecessary as the only source cited is not verifiable, and its reliability is questionable as it does not quote Parker regarding his sexuality, which does not follow Wikipedia’s reliable source guidelines. A reliable source quoted by Parker must be provided before such information is deemed factual."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Without having technically checked, there seems to have been disruptive logged-out editing fromSpecial:Contributions/2600:1700:D361:F1E1:0:0:0:0/64 which is now anonblocked for a year to prevent that from continuing.
The reporter isBlocked – for a period of1 week for edit warring with a block log full of similar blocks.
Gonna add to this, myself: I'm not associated with that user account, and never have been but I recognize that you making that implied accusation risks bypassing a contest of facts in the disagreement by a misuse of the rules with a false claim.
I'm not saying you're doing it on purpose, but I have to point out that is what its effect would be if taken as fact by someone with the right permissions.
Fair, you might just look alike. In any case, it's clear that the consensus is not with you. I'd say go start a discussion and make your sources for your claims known. Other editors will likely enough take on the new ideas if you se them up right.
Oh, I get it. No, that's not clear at all, but you asserting that is revealing about intent. A page squatter enforcing bias, their assist when they were identified and their vandalism was reverted, and then some "random" interjector accusing me of being a sockpuppet without any basis to try to bypass a contest of facts implies collaboration as it uses the same method (misrepresentation of event to bypass contest of facts) but it does not imply intellectually honest consensus on material facts of the original disagreement. It just implies, in the best case scenario, that you interject your non-validated, non-researched opinions in disruptive ways (at least twice in just this discussion). Mens rea is indicated.
I don't care about your recommendation to create an account, or, really any other talking point you've made not immediately related to a contest of facts on the core disagreement (3rd mention). At all.
Sorry. I had apparently checked the wrong box on the form and blocked them from "specific non-editing actions" which wasn't the problem (Yet). I have rectified that and blocked them now for two weeks since they continued edit warring.Daniel Case (talk)17:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Previously blocked for edit warring.That block from last year came with the following comment from the blocker: "Edit warring: most recently on Simla Convention, but talk page and edit history show chronic history of this without any willingness to discuss". I think MainBody may need an extended break. ~Pbritti (talk)04:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
You will note that this is in response to my own warning issued to Cambial Yellowing for repeat vandalism of the same page and is, as such, a pre-emptive report to avoid being the target of the same. You will see from the history on the page that I attempted to restore the page despite his/her repeated vandalism.2A00:23C8:4380:3D01:99CE:9443:4249:1FF8 (talk)22:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
I taggedAnonymous remailer that it needed cleanup and more references, and then proceeded to do a separate broad cleanup of the article to fix some of the major issues like section headings and unnecessary information. As I was doing so, the IP editor came to remove the maintenance tags. This caused an edit conflict, but they had simply just undone the maintenance tags, so I ignored the conflict and pushed my changes to the article. They reverted this again, and after I had reverted them two more times, I started writing on their talk page to try and mediate, but they had reverted me a fourth time while I was in the process of doing so. I don't foresee this user trying to resolve the conflict, as they have not responded and ignored edit summaries.SmittenGalaxy|talk!08:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Consistently making disruptive edits toThrive (video game). They are probably an account made solely to disrupt the article seeing as they have no contributions other than the article itself. —𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔)01:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Your edits are obviously disruptive to the article, and do not contribute in any way to it other than basic rewording and other stuff, seemingly made only to artificially increase your own edit count. —𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔)01:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Hello, MrOllie reverse information, based on referenced studies, some of which replicated, without critically evaluating them, which is a serious threat to objectivity.Jubalien (talk)14:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
There is clearly a big problem with this editor. They seem to be solely interested in promoting "conversion therapy", conversion therapists and fringe views of homosexuality and are willing to edit war in defence of indefensible content. They currently seem to be arguing on their talk page while logged out, which is bizarre. This could just as easily have gone to one of the other noticeboards for NOTHERE behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk)14:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
In no way or form have I promoted any kind of "conversion therapy", nor have I used anywhere this term. I deny this allegations as personal opinion and attack. My edits can be traced and reviewed. Again, evidence-based information is presented, yet the user won't engage in critical evaluation.Jubalien (talk)14:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Of course conversion therapy advocates never call it conversion therapy. It has dozens of names but that doesn't make it anything but conversion therapy. It's still fringe. It's still edit warring. You're still pretending not to understand what you did wrong despite clearly being intelligent enough for this feigned confusion this to be completely implausible. Also, what's going on on your User Talk page? Are you editing that while logged out? If so, why? --DanielRigal (talk)14:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[226]
Comments:
I removed a paragraph of text that was unencylopaedic, and also outrageously incorrect. The user I am reporting reverted without any explanation, clearly without even looking at my edit summary. They proceeded to revert three more times in just a few minutes, without any attempt to justify what they were doing. They have also spammed my talk page with templates. I do not think they have the slightest interest in the article's content; they are purely interested in reverting for the sake of reverting.2A00:23C8:D318:1801:985:AF59:6528:7CB1 (talk)22:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
I admit, I was in a rush minutes ago. I didn't properly see your edit and reverted. My fault. But now, it seems like the IP may be implying that I'm correlated to @TLJ7863 and/or @JohnDavies9612. I'm not, never heard of them either. The accounts being created in early 2023 are entirely coincidental. Not sure what "similar styles" mean here by the IP, but I saw the IP's edit on the Recent Changes. That led me there and I reverted. I don't want to be involved here or get in trouble by any means by only misreading 1 edit. Try to understand.Hacked (Talk|Contribs)22:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll be honest. I only did one revert and that was become I was reviewing recent changes and noticed the edit came up and all I saw was a large chunk of text being removed from an article and what appeared initially to be a somewhat vague edit summary (I didn't think to check the other edit summaries which I apologise for) so my instincts told me to revert asWP:UCR. I had no awareness at the time that there was an ongoing dispute between other prior to my revert. If I was too hasty then I apologise for my actions. ---TLJ7863 (talk)23:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
01:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision,which again is filled with errors of fact, chronology and presents biased speculation and conjecture taken from a very limited number of unreliable sources. I have requested a resolution on the resolution page to resolve these issues."
01:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC) "Reversion. The previous editor yet again reverted to a version filled with biased speculation, errors of fact and chronology and a clearly biased agenda that in blatant contradiction to Wikipedia's policy of neutrality only cites the opinions and speculations of a handful of already biased sources whose specific political and ideological agenda is clear while eschewing any semblance of balance. The previous editor deliberately presents conjecture and speculation to reinforce a biased view."
00:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC) "Reverted to previous edit. Despite the correcting & adding of more accurate information in this edit.theprevious editor reverted to sheerly speculative opinions and unverified claims that are clearly mere conjecture to present a biased slant that is inaccurate and leaves out moreaccurate information that presents a more balanced view. tts"
15:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC) "Removed purely speculative statements falsely claimed as fact, removed biased material, clarified several errors based on previous editor's reliance on inaccurate sources."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Has reverted 4 times to remove well-sourced information from academic books about the subject's opinions, when reverted by multiple editors. Refuses to discuss on talk page despite my pings and continually removes information. Edit warring notice given on their talk page, but they kept reverting.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[229]
Comments: The editor editing article (and few other) using multiple IP addresses. There is a block against one of the used IP'sUser contributions for 187.36.175.237 - Wikipedia. Block is based on editor's way of contributing, per blocking admin the reason wasPersistent addition of unsourced content: appears to be vandalism. The editor was involved in edit-warring not just with me. Their explanations are unacceptable (frequent) use of "vandalism" label, or outright dismissal of RS already in article with hash personal POV tone and labels they use to dismiss refed academics and researchers (so, for instance, according to their personal opinion and whim researcher (Ankica)Nazor is controversial for revisionist nationalist antiserb pov, orThe "Bosnian Cyrillic" is a disputable and controversial neologism made 19th c by declared scientific racist Nazi Ustasha collaborationist Ćiro Truhelka to revisionist and deny state-of-art historical Serbian Cyrillic), they're using refs without page No. or misinterpreting its content, refing statements with refs that either do not talk about stated info or are misinterpreted, and so on.
01:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC) "Added in scholarship information- With links to reports. Please stop taking this down. It is public information and should be told on Wikipedia."
18:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC) "SMARTSE - Keeps trying to discriminate Tom Skinner - using Daily Mail stories that are not verified. Please report TRUTH! This is Wikipedia. Not your political gain."
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[236]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[237]
Comments:
This user has been actively edit warring atArmand Duplantis since September and haspreviously been brought to ANI for this. I can count at least five separate edit wars on this article since that point, typically over the same content. They have exhibited a clear lack of care for community consensus on a range of instances.[238][239][240] They have made a lot of valuable contributions to the topic, but they continually disregard other users' views.MB243716:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Really, you are now throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this issue, all this because you can't accept the fact that the Polish Statehood tag is a legitimate addition. You can't argue your point on merit, so now you start with ared herring topic in order to block the new addition. --PJK 1993 (talk)08:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I would highlight that the listed 3RR above are a combination of two separate edits and are not related to the same change. Also, on the talk page even an adminUser:asilvering said the second tag would be appropriate for the article, so user Sbaio is simply refusing to accept that fact and is making an issue out of a legitimate and non-controversial addition. Clear example of "Wikipedia:I just don't like it" and "Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling" --PJK 1993 (talk)07:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
...on the talk page even an adminUser:asilvering said the second tag would be appropriate for the article... does not mean that it must be added to the page. Your disregard of my replies and continued accusations show very strong signs ofWP:NOTHERE. And you have recently been warned for edit warring by an administrator so you are on very dangerous grounds right now. –sbaio07:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for showing everyone that you can't provide a legitimate reason why the tag should not be included, just your "Wikipedia:I just don't like it" and "Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling". Other similar articles have such tags when the article is listed in the tag likeHoly Roman Empire orSwedish Empire, but here thePolish-Lithuanian Commonwealth can't have such a tag even though it a legitimate addition. Stop waisting everyone's time and accept that the tag is a legitimate addition.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPJK 1993 (talk •contribs)07:53, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I concur withSbaio. PJK 1993‘s editing behavior is marked by persistent edit warring, personal attacks + false accusations (see alsothis edit summary orthis comment), and disruptive editing. Despite repeated warnings on their talk page and also on article talk pages (e.g.here), the user has not changed their behavior. There are clear signs ofWP:NOTHERE (general patterns of disruptive behavior, little or no interest in working collaboratively, treating editing as a battleground). It‘s particularly concerning that PJK 1993 often alters and/or deletes cited information from reliable sources without verifying them, see e.g.[241][242]. It should also be noted that there is strong evidence that this user is not a newcomer. Their very first edit is initiating a RfC,[243] and they created an entry on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard that same day,[244] which is very unusual for a new editor (to put it mildly).JeanClaudeN1 (talk)10:13, 21 September 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.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warned via edit comment)[252]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[253]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[254]
Comments: User removes an entire section, despite citing only part of it as incorrect. The user reverted multiple times without an edit comment. A discussion regarding the information is ingoing on the talk page but has yet to be concluded.--ᛒᛚᚮᚴᚴᚼᛆᛁ ᛭ 𝔅𝔩𝔬𝔠𝔨𝔥𝔞𝔧06:14, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
You're both edit warring, and both of you should stop. @Vesole878, it's rather hypocritical to revert someone telling them to wait for a talk page discussion to conclude when that person is discussing there and you aren't. --asilvering (talk)10:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
No, they werenot vandalism, and you know perfectly well what that means, since you've been blocked for this before already this year. --asilvering (talk)12:32, 21 September 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.
There had been a block, the block has been conditionally removed and the edit war is stale; I'll close this here. It's good to see discussion betweenVesole878 andBlockhaj, but it should continue atTalk:Saab 35 Draken so that others can participate. You may need to start anRfC at some point, for example if after a detailed discussion all arguments have been provided and the discussion is starting to run in circles.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[259]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[260]
Comments: User:Mechanical Keyboarder keeps reverting my edits and refuse to discuss the matter in the talk page. My attempt to get an answer is replied by "wikipedia is not a copy of merriam webster".--Martianmister (talk)10:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Uh,
Martianmister, why are you edit warring to restore a version that contains the text "Thereis many different attempts"? If you insist in keeping a revision, make sure it doesn't contain obvious errors anyone would undo.
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. ToBeFree's points stand, however.Daniel Case (talk)17:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
This IP with very little editing skills (as evidenced by their usage of bare links instead of references) wants to add an accusation of antisemitism to an actress. When asked to discuss whether this falls within BLP, they refuse to communicate.Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk)10:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Please note that their first edit is actually a revert (in fact, they edit warred over it[261][262][263][264] until the article was protected). They disregarded everything I said in the talk page about what DRN is and the fact that they didn't invite an editor who disagrees with them (their edit summariesBreep andSheewaerp sum up their replies there) and insist on imposing their edit despite multiple editors disagreeing with them. They cherry picked who to invite to a DR (leaving out an editor that disagrees with them, while inviting those who didn't weigh in) and for some reason, they now think that the moderator of the DR decides what goes into the article (without waiting for the opinion of those who disagree, whether invited to that DR or not).M.Bitton (talk)00:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
No, my first edit is not a revert. I included the text. I am not insisting on anything. I am following what the moderator wrote I should do. If they wish to revert it then I have no problem. If I missed someone I was meant to include then I apologise. I have no problem with them being involved. It was not intentional. Also I should note we are waiting for those who disagree. That is the point he is not responding. I thought the point is to wait to see if there are objections to it and then continue.John Not Real Name (talk)00:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I thought the point is to wait to see if there are objections if you think that a revert of your addition is not an objection, then there isn't much that can be said.M.Bitton (talk)00:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
No, you are reverting due to a lack of consensus. However my point is that the issue is being resolved and as part of that I was allowed to include it. The lack of consensus issue is what is being dealt with. I took it as you were reverting based on what you thought of the consensus and not the issue at hand hence the revert.John Not Real Name (talk)00:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
You don't have a point. All you have is a history of edit warring on that article. This is a fact that you cannot erase with another wall of text (like you did on that talk page).M.Bitton (talk)00:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Uhhh...I do. I followed what the moderator asked. To see if the matter would be reverted based on the content. I did so. You objected over a lack of consensus which was being dealt with in the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. That is the distinction.John Not Real Name (talk)00:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:19:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC) "By 632, Najd and Bahrain should be clearly under his rule. They are considered to have apostatised for a reason."
Diffs of the user's reverts:
21:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC) "So are we gonna to deny the basic historical reports about the expeditions he sent to subdue Bahrain for example?!"
21:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC) "Didn’t Muhammad sent Ibn al-Walid to conquer Dumat al-Jandal?! It’s in the Tabuk Expedition page!!!!!"
Edit warring. Put simply, the article has an opening date from a recent reference with a quote that backs this up. AreyanT101 has changed it several times without a new reference. They've also removed various nbsp and made several grammar changes that don't accord with the MOS... and not a minor edit. Left a "do not add uncited information" post on their page, edit summary that asks them to discuss on the talk page andtagged them in an edit summary.Turini2 (talk)06:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
As of now the user has not yet violated 3RR since, as too frequently often happens here, the first edit they made has been incorrectly counted as a revert. But we will see how this develops.Daniel Case (talk)19:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
The user was edit warring independently of the three-revert rule and is editing on a mobile app. They did manually undo one ofTurini2's edits, so they're aware that they're dealing with another human rather than a technical issue or a bot. To make them fully aware of this being a collaborative project, I have placed a one-week sitewide block. They'll notice. They'll either accept, wait and avoid such situations in the future, or they can file an appeal explaining that they won't edit war anymore.~ ToBeFree (talk)01:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
09:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC) "Additional credits are not included in infobox. Additonal writer, additional composer, additional cinematographer etc. are not given infobox credit."
11:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC) "As per the title credits on the movir, Dominic Arun is the solo writer of the main screenplay. Santhy Balachandran is the dramaturgist who is credited for 'additional screenplay'."
Unlike other movies, the reliable independent sources credit her as the co writer. The movie credits themselves are PRIMARY. — Benison(Beni · talk)02:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Rare Replay is a 2015 compilation of 30 video games – not a biography of a living person. Not a current hot political topic. And the diffs look like[278]. I personally wouldn't invest as much time into this as you both did, and simplydisengage instead, but if that's not an option,focus on content on the article's talk page and stop debating whether there have been three or four reverts.~ ToBeFree (talk)03:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Continously reverting edits and when invited to talk about the issue on article talk page and user's talk page He deletes the section calling itBASELESS -AnjanaLarka♥07:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
This single-purpose account has been floodingB. Shivadhar Reddy with unsourced promotional claims since account creation on 21 September[279]. I welcomed them, tried to clean up the mess made of the article after my initial revert, added what sources I could find to retain some of the new information, but all template posts at their user talk from me and fromUser:HwyNerd Mike were ignored, and they've repeatedly removed the inline "citation needed" templates I added to the less wild claims. Username makes me suspect that it's a member of police staff, tasked with beefing up what was a thin bio, and therefore uninterested in me pointing out Wikipedia policy to them. Twinkle was only able to get a subset of their reverts and my subsequent fix attempts, please see edit history from 21 Sept for more detail.Wikishovel (talk)06:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree with all of the above, plus I'd also like to add that this account has, along with reverting Wikishovel and HwyNerd Mike's efforts to clean up unsourced puffery, repeatedly attempted to add copyvio images to commons + the article, see commons talk[280] + diff[281].abasteraster ✮tc 10:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Hi, the IP is from Croatia. He has used various IPs to remove content about the Malaysia football league, clubs, players and some of them are from Europe. He has interfered with other people's work. You can see here[282],[283].JohnDavies9612 (talk)23:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of1 month~ ToBeFree (talk)22:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely~ ToBeFree (talk)22:27, 27 August 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. Per BB-PB above.Daniel Case (talk)17:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Stale~ ToBeFree (talk)22:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Page protected~ ToBeFree (talk)11:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Already blocked~ ToBeFree (talk)15:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment This appears to be a tit-for-tat report in response toWP:AN/I#User:AzanianPearl. Also, if sanctions are taken for edit warring on past behaviour and not future edits from this point forward, both editors should be sanctioned. —C.Fred (talk)11:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Daniel Case (talk)02:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)