When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understandWP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Violations of other restrictions, likeWP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is abehavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from abold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregiouspoint of view edits and other good-faith changesdo not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. Seehere for exemptions.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[6]
Comments:
Edit warring to insert disputed content without consensus. Not only is he citing IAR after being warned about edit warring, but he keeps repeating bad faith allegations andpersonal attacks in his edit summaries. His comment implies he intends to keep reverting without consensus. He has a battleground attitude.Ryuudou (talk)07:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:The manner of speaking and the arguments used are an blatant word play, as if the explanation were for children, rather than an effort to make an encyclopedic article.Dalida Editor pleaseping ormessage me17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made different edits in those cases, the latter was not a revert, but an elucidation. I did not remove the disputed sentence the second time. I would argue that my second edit did not change the content back to a previous state.אקעגן (talk)20:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Declined The edit window on the page has no 1RR notice. Maybe it should, but if you weren't advised you were violating policy before you violated it, it's really not right that you be blocked for the violation.Daniel Case (talk)22:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case, while I'm fine with the decline and would probably also have closed this without action – just for the nitpicking sake of completeness – topic-wide restrictions apply even if there is no editnotice about them, which is especially the case when material from such an area is added to a page with a different main topic.אקעגן had beennotified about the restriction and had previously been blocked for violating another restriction in the area.אקעגן, please be careful there. You did remove the word "most" twice after it had been added, performing two (partial) reverts, independently of whether you also added something in its place. But you have a point and treating this with a block would be completely overkill.~ ToBeFree (talk)00:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I figured after writing this that if the user had been made aware of the topic restriction previously, that wouldn't matter. I really do wish that when people report things like this, they make it clear that the reported usershould know. Because it can't be deduced from the article history.Daniel Case (talk)03:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
07:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Restoring the version protected for one year by Daniel Case. The claim of “no consensus to restore” is incorrect — consensus is required before removing stable, sourced, and protection-validated content, not before restoring it. Per WP:BRD and the active protection, unilateral blanking is not permitted."
07:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Hard-reverting removal of protected, sourced content. The page is under a 1-year protection; ignoring protection and repeatedly blanking sourced material violates WP:ARB, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:CONSENSUS. Please stop disruptive reverts and use the talk page."
20:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC) "Restoring sourced content. Personal “lack of faith” is not a policy-based reason for removal, and no specific text–source issue has ever been identified. Reliable, cited material should not be replaced with blanking absent concrete, verifiable objections."
As a bit of background, seemeta:User:Kleuske/Huang Xianfan. There is a network of contributors very interested in writing non-neutral articles on this topic and translating it everywhere. (Theoretically a separate issue from the edit warring, of course, but still relevant.)SnowFire (talk)16:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Naxalite organizations and groups are officially designated as terrorist organizations under the rigorous Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. Indian courts recognize Naxalite activities as a form of terrorism."
13:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Naxalite organizations and groups are officially designated as terrorist organizations under the rigorous Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. Indian courts recognize Naxalite activities as a form of terrorism."
13:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Naxalite organizations and groups are officially designated as terrorist organizations under the rigorous Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. Indian courts recognize Naxalite activities as a form of terrorism."
13:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC) "Naxalite organizations and groups are officially designated as terrorist organizations under the rigorous Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967. Indian courts recognize Naxalite activities as a form of terrorism."
The IP editor objects to the infobox showing the box office asest. ₹80−250 crore, and would preferest. ₹110−250 crore. Usually he/she deletes the citation that supports ₹80 crore
[24] EDIT: Disruptive edit made without any prior discussion barely outside of the 24-hour window.
[25] EDIT 2: That user is now reverting my OWN edits on this noticeboard.
[26] EDIT 3: That user has now once again removed the "songwriter" occupation (that another used added back) without any clear consensus to remove it.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[27]They removed the warning:[28]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[29]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[30]
Comments:
EDIT: That same disruptive user has now removed[31] "actress" from both the lede and infobox of the same articlewithout any prior discussion even though four movie roles by Rihanna are mentioned in the lede...Israell (talk)17:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new argument formed out of thin air I see. I removed it because YOU said that she is not mainly known for being an actress (see talk page). I genuinely cannot be bothered to deal with this. Administrators, if anything actually important is brought up, please ping me.750h+17:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is that she is not mainly known as an actress. If she is not mainly known as something then it should not be in the lead/infobox.750h+01:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "songwriter" occupation has been part of the infobox for many years.[32][33][34] That user is the only one who keeps removing it; they removed it last September withno prior discussion.[35] They've now even removed my attempt to expand the article to elaborate on Rihanna's songwriting.[36] They are therefore attempting to prevent me, a long-time editor, to contribute to the article with valid sources. Besides, they are now admittedlyonly pinging three users that they know may vote the way that they want.[37] Isn't this canvassing? How is this correct and fair? That editor seems opposed to ANY mention of Rihanna's songwriting (a verifiable fact) anywhere in the article, thus depriving readers of that information. I reasonably suspect POV-pushing from that user.Israell (talk)07:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, I'm NOT the only one who keeps removing it, this user Israell has been arguing with users SINCE 2024 over whether "songwriter" should stay in the infobox. THIS editor is quite literally the only editor I know who agrees that the "songwriter" part should be included. From what I've seen, me, alongside I believe 4-5 other editors have expressed disagreement with this user's edits because we believe that she is not a known songwriter (reasons in the article talk page), yet this one editor is trying to push this narrative that she is.750h+13:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As evidence by the Rihanna article's history, that user is indeed the only one whokeeps removing that occupation—without any prior discussion, without any clear consensus to remove it. The vast majority of editors have absolutely no issue with it. It had actually been part of the infobox for ten years. Besides, the article in question did mention Rihanna's collaborative songwriting, and that same user removed itwithout any prior discussion last July.[38]
And they are now attempting to prevent me from mentioning that artist's songwriting craft in theArtistry section of the article just so they can keep saying that if the body of the article doesn't mention it, the infobox cannot mention it either... Rihanna has 152 songwriting credits, wrote many successful songs (different charts, worldwide) for herself and others, and the Academy Awards recognized her music composition work onLift Me Up (Rihanna song), but that user is opposed toany mention of her songwriting occupation anywhere in the article. Note: This is not the place to debate this. This is about the user edit-warring ondifferent elements of the article even after I issued him an edit war notice.Israell (talk)14:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Israell,this revision is before I ever edited the article. Tell me WHERE it makes ANY mention of her songwriting, but in the infobox you are repeatedly trying to add back, and quickly. I do not care about if she has 2 songwriting credits or 2 trillion. if many sources don't mention her being a songwriter then we can't include it in the article. Find multiple reliable sources that explain her songwriting process. Then, we can determine if she is a songwriter. Anyway, as you said this discussion should be continued on her talk page. Best,750h+14:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This revision mentions: 1. Rihanna's songwriting in the2018–present: Hiatus, upcoming ninth studio album and Super Bowl LVII halftime show section thatyou removed last July. 2. Rihanna is listed as a songwriter in the infobox. 3. The bottom part of the article, in theGrammy Award for Best Melodic Rap Performance (2010s section), mentions Rihanna's songwriting work onRun This Town, a hugely successful song that sold millions of units, reached number 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, number 1 on four other charts, and won two Grammys and a People's Choice Award. It also mentionsThe Monster (song) andLoyalty (Kendrick Lamar song), two other Grammy Award-winning songs co-written by Rihanna. And I've already provided evidence that the article listed Rihanna as a songwriter as early as 2015, before (from what I recall) I ever edited it.Israell (talk)15:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Where in the 2018–present: Hiatus, upcoming ninth studio album and Super Bowl LVII halftime show section, which I apparently removed last July (and I’m confused as to why you’re repeatedly saying “last July” when this was the July that was 5 months ago 2. Which is what we are talking about so I don’t think that’s a good argument. 3. Three ‘hugely’ successful songs does not make her a songwriter. Find reliable sources stating how she works as a songwriter. If she is a actually a songwriter it should not be this hard. Best,750h+15:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That section that you removed[39] last July mentions Rihanna having co-songwriters! This is NOT the place to keep debating this. On the talk page of the article, I mentioned other songs that were huge hits for her that she wrote. Whether or not you personally consider Rihanna a songwriter is irrelevant. Wikipedia is about verifiability; Rihanna is factually a songwriter, and it is well-documented. Please stop pushing your viewpoint in such disruptive manner.Israell (talk)16:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that does not make her a songwriter, period. How many times am I going to say this? Find reliable sources that state her ability as a songwriter. Good god, if she’s actually a songwriter, it should not be this hard. I don’t want to hear “well-documented” if the only person pushing this songwriter narrative cannot find many RS that document her songwriting ability.750h+19:12, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[43]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[44]
Comments:
TheSilesian language page has a 1 revert rule. Prior to the user's second revert, I addressed the concerns with his editing on my talk page ([45]), and on talk page[46].
10:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC) "Claim that majority of Uttrarkhand people are rajput is over exaggerated...historical records furthur state that by late 19-20th century the Rajputisation of majority native people happened ."
Keeps removing longstanding sourced content on socio-politics without seeking consensus in the talk page despite multiple warnings, expanation and requests in the edit summaries, the user's talk page and the article talk page.Fylindfotberserk (talk)16:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing/removal of content started on 15 November 2025, followed by slow-burn edit warring possibly to game the system. I've added those diffs and warnings.-Fylindfotberserk (talk)17:04, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed content: Inclusion/removal of the Aximage poll commissioned byFolha Nacional in the "First round" table (Ventura leading). Example of the sourced version:diff
13 DG 13
19 Nov 2025 – removes the Aximage poll as "a fake pool that doesn't exist":diff
27 Nov 2025 – again removes the same poll, calling it "not real" and "a fake poll that the supports of Ventura are making up":diff
Danopt
18 Nov 2025 – removes the Aximage poll (manual revert):diff
27 Nov 2025 – keeps the poll removed, with edit summary "The source is not valid because the official party body will accept any other source if it presents it":diff
Mendes082013
27 Nov 2025 – removes the Aximage poll, arguing that because ERC has not yet deposited it and it was first published in the party newspaper it "could be fake or fabricated":diff
~2025-36856-64
27 Nov 2025 – removes the Aximage poll with the edit summary "Opinion polling is not credible":diff
Comments: I (Games30Top) am involved; I have repeatedly restored the Aximage/Folha Nacional poll because it is a sourced poll by Aximage (a pollster already used elsewhere in the article). Opposing editors are repeatedly removing the same sourced poll as "fake" or "not credible" without any source showing fabrication, and are doing this instead of using the talk page. I have now stopped editing the article on this point and am seeking administrator input on how to handle this dispute.
(Non-administrator comment)Wikipedia:BOOMERANG. I count 6 reverts forGames30Top, 2 reverts forDanopt, and 1 revert for the rest.Wikipedia:Consensus is clearly againstGames30Top. I also find it weird that this user's only edits are on this page (and they started editing today), and that they already know how to 3RR report (sorta). It is also interesting thatH3nrique Bregie made the same edit prior. I do not accuse anybody of anything, but this behavior should be noted.–LuniZunie ツ(talk)21:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cansubscribe to aweb feed of this page in eitherRSS orAtom format.
Page protected already~ ToBeFree (talk)19:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of2 weeks~ ToBeFree (talk)19:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Declined The edit window on the page has no 1RR notice. Maybe it should, but if you weren't advised you were violating policy before you violated it, it's really not right that you be blocked for the violation.Daniel Case (talk)22:56, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely~ ToBeFree (talk)18:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already blocked~ ToBeFree (talk)21:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
