17:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "edit was done without adding any new information to back up editing reverting back to historically accurate content"
17:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "making a correction other user made a historically inaccurate and uneducated edit without signing proper documentation as to why edit is factual should probably look at some more historic references. Also the Vatican if they’re going to try to make another edit."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[1]
Comments:
This user is consistently removing sourced information, and then replacing it with unsourced information after being warned multiple times by multiple editors (twinkle hasn’t picked up on all of the warnings for the report). Clear refusal to listen and doesn’t seem to be getting the point. This is not the only page that they have been repeatedly re-adding unsourced content to after it has been reverted by other editors. It’s also tricky to assume good faith after this[2].ScrabbleTiles (talk)17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
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."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Edit warring across multiple articles, based on all of the edit summaries, it seems as if this may not be their first / only account.–LuniZunie ツ(talk)13:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
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)
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)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[14]
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[31]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[32]
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 ([33]), and on talk page[34].
[41] EDIT: Disruptive edit made without any prior discussion barely outside of the 24-hour window.
[42] EDIT 2: That user is now reverting my OWN edits on this noticeboard.
[43] 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:[44]They removed the warning:[45]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[46]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[47]
Comments:
EDIT: That same disruptive user has now removed[48] "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)
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)
I then said in the following sentence: "Her eight movie credits suffice." I never argued for "actress" to be removed.Israell (talk)19:34, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
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)
The "songwriter" occupation has been part of the infobox for many years.[49][50][51] That user is the only one who keeps removing it; they removed it last September withno prior discussion.[52] They've now even removed my attempt to expand the article to elaborate on Rihanna's songwriting.[53] 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.[54] 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)
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)
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.[55]
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)
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)
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)
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)
That section that you removed[56] 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)
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)
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)
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)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
As well as edit warring the content being added isvandalism and user has also repeatedly told users warning them to stop to "shut up" and "stop and go away"Jabba550 (talk)14:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
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)
The consensus had been that the poll was to be added after it was submitted to the ERC official website. When I saw the poll added to the page again I thought it had already been submitted, and just added the remaining data of the poll. That was my mistake, I didn't check the source.H3nrique Bregie (talk)14:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
05:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1324711900 byMikewem (talk) No reason apparent for violation ofWP:R#PLA; also, after careful further consultation, the definite article IS, in fact, required with "Jewry" when referring to the abstract concept of the collective entirety of the Jews"
Objection: The reporter is himself warring, and has been reluctant to provide a reasonable rationale for his repeated reverts, which, in addition, are in violation ofWP:R#PLA, which has been repeatedly pointed out to him.--Hildeoc (talk)06:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
I and another editor both reverted your bold and unsupported change to the status quo. You were warned and are bright-line over 3RR. I explained on talk whyWP:RPLA is not being violated.Andre🚐06:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
My rationale was not belated. It's been there all along and the talk thread predates your 3rd revert. Nor is it spurious. RPLA is not a blanket rule.Andre🚐06:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Your rationale came onlyafter severaluncommented reverts on your part. Also, your rationale about neglecting RPLA, and alleged "archaism" is unconvincing / unsourced. Anyway, I suggest we may continue discussing the substantial aspects on the relevant talk page, not here.Hildeoc (talk)07:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
No, I suggest you be blocked and revert yourself for violating 3RR and there is no consensus for your bold and wrong edit.Andre🚐07:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Also, I never made a single "uncommented" revert. You make unfounded aspersions. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to break 3RR.Andre🚐07:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Revert clearly has a summary, was accompanied by a prior warning and prior summary, and was followed within minutes by a talk page post. Try again. You have shown no remorse for breaking 3RR.Andre🚐07:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Are you serious? I've provided a whole plethora of academic quotes, and now you're trying to dupe me for asingle heavy-handed reference to a quote from an article by a major Australian public broadcaster?!Hildeoc (talk)08:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
The part being quoted is literally"These comments reprise the falsehoods contained in the proven forgery and fabrication known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Online comments of this nature, usually by people sheltering within the coward’s castle of anonymity, are depressingly familiar. Less easy to explain is the decision of ABC moderators to permit such racist comments to remain on its Facebook page." Why you would think it is OK to quote that I have no idea.Andre🚐08:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Hildeoc has subsequently self-reverted on a talk page consensus, but I think a bright-line 3RR violation does at least merit a formal warning if not a token block.Andre🚐17:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Hildeoc hasself-reverted now, explicitly not as an intermediate measure but in response to a talk page consensus having been found. According toWP:ONUS, it wasHildeoc's job to find a consensus for their change instead of waiting for a consensus against it, but that's where we are now. It's highly unlikely thatHildeoc will continue making the same edit.
Comments: As you can see above this guy violated the 3 revert rule. This is my first time making an ANI so im sorry if this is clunky.
I am trying to improve Islamic history articles because they suck and are disorganized. But I consistently run into this user reverting me, and I notice it only happens when I happen to mention that someone was Persian.
Abu Hanifa was one of the most important figures in Islamic history because he founded the Hanifi school of jurisprudence which is the most widely followed today. As such, there is a lot of nationalist tension surrounding his identity, but mainstream scholarship and encyclopedias view all list him as Persian.
However, if you read the article in its current state, you would not get that impression. You would leave confused about whether he was Arab, Indian, or maybe Persian. This is NOT a reflection of scholarship, it is nationalist vandalism.
My edit, which you can see in the diffs above, was not even primarily about his Persian identity. I improved the article in many ways by making it far more clear, removing unsourced claims about his life, and more. But the mere fact that I mentioned he was Persian caused this user to revert the entire thing.
I do NOT believe that 90% of an article should be debates about what modern country a historic figure was born in and what ethnicity he was. I believe that should be one or two sentences max unless there is actually a real debate about it in academia.
This guy literally cites an Iraqi nationalist Arab historian who said that "actually, Abu Hanifa was a South Yemeni Arab who fled to Iraq during the Great Flood of Noah and his family stayed there until the Arab invasion thousands of years later" WHAT THE HELL IS EVEN THAT?? As WP:UNDUE says:Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
My approach, which you can see in my edits, was to completely remove all of that YAP dedicated to: "Oh he was born in Afghanistan or Uzbekistan or Iraq or"" and "He was Arab or Persian or" and just simply:
Abu Hanifa was born to a Persian[8][9] family[c] in the early decades of the Umayyad Caliphate, most likely the year 699 CE.[d]↵[1]: 71 [10][11] He was either born in Kufa[1]: 71 or Khorasan[3][1]: 69 ; either way, he spent the entirety of his productive life in the environs of Iraq.
Instead of 90% of the page including the LEDE being a nationalist debate, those two sentences. Two sentences, thats ALL WE NEED! We want to actually read about Abu Hanifa, but nobody reading the article can actually get to his life and actual CONTRIBUTIONS without 90% of the article being a tiktok comment section nationalist debate, its EMBARASSING for islamic history as a whole but this guy insists on doing this for ANY article that mentions Persians. He did it for Abu Muslim's article too andI left a talk message on his page for that, and he never responded to it. Hes not interested in dialogue, Ive tried before, so please help me out.
User:Idris Shirazi, why didn't either of you start a discussion about this fact on the article talk page? You were both edit warring. This sounds like a content dispute that would benefit from input from more participants so it isn't a Me VS. You edit war. You could even notify editors on a related WikiProject talk page to participate.LizRead!Talk!02:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
As I said I've tried talking to him before, and he never responded.
Isn't the three revert rule a thing? He reverted three times.
[Conduct-irrelevant part removed; see the box below for the full comment. ~ToBeFree]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
As I said I've tried talking to him before, and he never responded.
Isn't the three revert rule a thing? He reverted three times.
Even so its a policy violation not a content dispute. A source from an Iraqi nationalist appealing to Abrahamic mythology (noahs ark flood and escape where his bloodline somehow stayed in Iraq for thousands of years and never became Persian) as well as an Indian sheikh saying "He was definitely arab" is not a content dispute its a wikipedia violation, is it not? What is there to debate?
It comes down to us fundamentally disagreeing on what deserves to be shown. My logic is that all encyclopedias and English language scholars and contemporary primary sources agree he was Persian, and I just fundamentally disagree that we should be confusing readers with fringe interpretations about the Great Flood and some random sheikh, because its WP:Undue.
I reverted @Idris Shirazi because they were trying to remove the sources that discussed about origins of Abu Hanifa. specifically, the ones that attributed him as being Arab or Jat. while keeping only the persian attribution.
But the mere fact that I mentioned he was Persian caused this user to revert the entire thing. if you compare the sources cited regarding his origins (whether he is persian or Jat), there are more sources that identify him as a Jat than as Persian. you were insisting on displaying Abu Hanifa's Persian origins in the lead, which goes againstWP:ETHNICITY. some users had already warned you about potentially violatingWP:ETHNICITY.[94] I also informed you about this.[95] yet you dismissed the sources that attributed him to Jats or Arabs which if you really want to reachInstead of 90% of the page including the LEDE being a nationalist debate I don't understand how is this a "nationalist debate" when it is a dispute about origins? AsWP:NPV states:All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV),which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. perWP:NPV, all views must be represented fairly. the sources that identify Abu Hanifa as Persian are reliable sources, as are the sources that identify him as a Jat or an Arab. the attempt to keep only the Persian origins in the article meanwhile many other sources have said otherwise constitutes POV-pushing.A source from an Iraqi nationalist please I don't think you have a right to call whatever source as a biased source, that's not acceptable.Indian sheikh saying "He was definitely arab" is not a content dispute its a wikipedia violation this Indian Sheikh is calledShah Waliullah Dehlawi a scholar in Islam and one of the most important figures of Sunni Islam, I don't think whatever he has said is considered to be "biased" or "invalid"R3YBOl(🌲)07:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
there are more sources that identify him as a Jat than as Persian. you were insisting on displaying Abu Hanifa's Persian origins in the lead, which goes againstWP:ETHNICITY.
THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM BRO!! That is WP:UNDUE. The fact that editors have added more sources, and more elaboration, of sources about a possible Jat origin than his Persian origin IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM! That is what WP:UNDUE means:Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
All major language English encyclopedias, all major language Arabic encyclopedias and historians, represent him as Persian. For this reason, it MUST be represented as the encyclopedic view. The fact that there are more citations for the Jats is an argument for my point!
some users had already warned you about potentially violatingWP:ETHNICITY.[51
This is unfair, dude. Ibn Muqla is a different story than Abu Hanifa. Ibn Muqla, although Persian, was not targeted for being Persian, so it makes sense to exclude his ethnicity from the lede. Abu Hanifa was slandered as a corrupter of theajam (remember,ajam is a word for Persian). His Persian ethnicity was a big reason why he was attacked by traditionalists, because they saw him as a foreign innovator for the religion,
perWP:NPV, all views must be represented fairly. the sources that identify Abu Hanifa as Persian are reliable sources, as are the sources that identify him as a Jat or an Arab. the attempt to keep only the Persian origins in the article meanwhile many other sources have said otherwise constitutes POV-pushing.
Yes, all MAJOR AND SUPPORTED VIEWS. I don't go on Ataturks wikipedia and write two paragraphs about how Ataturk is actually Jewish just because there are theories about his Jewish origin. Why? Because those theories are not supported by the vast majority of scholarship, and we have to represent scholarship, not whatever views we want to. That is WP UNDUE
please I don't think you have a right to call whatever source as a biased source, that's not acceptable
I dont mean it to offend you but that is literally what that is.
this Indian Sheikh is calledShah Waliullah Dehlawi a scholar in Islam and one of the most important figures of Sunni Islam, I don't think whatever he has said is considered to be "biased" or "invalid"
No, he is specifically an important figure in Salafist Islamic revival, which is known for radical revisionist and Arabizing historical views. And again, he goes against the majority of scholarship which is my point.Idris Shirazi (talk)08:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
@Lizwhy didn't either of you start a discussion about this fact on the article talk page? isn't he the one who is supposed to start a discussion and discuss the concerns in the article? his only objective is to remove all the other different views of that Person's origins of him being attributed to Arabs and Jats. and only keep the persian origins in the excuse of "nationalist debate" or "your sources are biased" or "I removed them because that's valid for beginner readers" how is that helpful? as neutrality they all should be represented. anyways I will start a discussion and quote the sources that identified Abu Hanifa as a Jat or an Arab.R3YBOl(🌲)07:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Dude, there is nothing to debate. He was not an Arab, and the Jat interpretation is a minority view that is rarely presented, and when it is, it is presented as a very small possibility. We can add an {{efn|Some scholars have interpreted his nisba to indicate a possible Jatt origin, although tentatively}}, but thats it.
Brother, we do not need an entire paragraph in the lede talking about debates about where he was born, we do not need 6 paragraphs debating his ethnicity. Why? Because THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SCHOLARSHIP ON ABU HANIFA DOES! If he was someone who was known for being a subject of fierce debate in scholarship, then it would make sense. What we are presenting is that he is a subject of fierce debate among WIKIPEDIA EDITORS not SCHOLARSHIP. Do you get my point??
I said my edit is more beginner friendly because it is dude, look at my edit and try to look past the "Persian" part and see how much clearer it is.Idris Shirazi (talk)08:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Is over-representing minority positions a conduct or content dispute? I.e., Abu Hanifa is a descendant of an Arab Noah's ark survivor. Is that a content dispute or conduct dispute?Idris Shirazi (talk)21:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Idris Shirazi, I understand your point: Persistently adding unsourced or non-neutral content is a conduct issue, but we're far from the point where this would be evaluated. Please focus on content on the article's talk page and ignore the other user's behavior for now. You're helping neither the situation nor the article by attempting to make this a conduct discussion, and if there was one to be held, that would be atWP:ANI. One day. Not today.~ ToBeFree (talk)21:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Ignoring multiple warnings and reverts from multiple users, including a 3RR warning from User:Flibirigit. Does not change behaviour, continues to include contested content being actively discussed at the talk page.DaHuzyBru (talk)12:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Please take a look — the person was previously blocked for editing the page with their account, and now they’re doing the same using their IP address. Even after being warned, they keep making edits. It looks like they may have been hired by someone to update the page.Everett Millais (talk)12:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
20:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision1325386399 byRambling Rambler (talk) Consensus has already been established. Want to argue with United Press International? Take it up with them. December 11, 1990 is firmly established as Demie's date of birth and has been published in the mass media for years now. You're just causing trouble by challenging it."
20:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC) "Restoriing dob which *is* reliably sourced, contrary to Hipal's lies. Hipal has been reported for vandalism."
03:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC) "Undoing Hipal's vandalism of 24 October 2025. Her age is reliably sourced and there is no argument to be made. If you remove this again the administrator's noticeboard will be notified of your vandalism Hipal."
08:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC) "WP:ABOUTSELF presumes editors abide with common sense. Inarguable facts remain: 1. the subject is widely known to lie re a variety of subjects, discounting ABOUTSELF as a reliable source (regardless of ideological tangents), 2. a flurry of insignificant sources support an alleged birthdate, though none of them are reliable."
07:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC) "ABOUTSELF is indeed permitted for birthdates in some cases, conditionally. However, as you yourselfclarify, the subject "lied very often for decades." Extrapolating only some of his statements is OR and aWP:BLP violation."
06:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC) "High-quality source required for BLP birth date / year; also rm deprecated parameter "associated_acts" from infobox."
Worth noting that the bulk of the temporary account's edits have been a potentially POINTY blanket removal of birth years and ages from quite a few BLP articles.jellyfish✉18:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Also, they are doing this without regard for a high quality source. They removed the birth year fromMichael J. Moynihan, where it is cited to an academic book! This is not about "high quality reliable sources" at all, then.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
I noticed similar activity. They're using a blanket edit summary, but I'm not convinced they're actuallylooking at the existing sources. It appears in some cases the birth date is not well sourced, but in others it is. That, unfortunately, creates a bit of a mess to clean up.ButlerBlog (talk)19:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm usually RC patrolling when this happens, and the edit summaries are always obviously from that user, so I'll try to keep this updated when new TAs arrive and if anything surprising comes along.FantasticWikiUser (talk)20:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
I've just gone through and reverted all of their vandalism, which hadn't already been addressed by other editors. They appear to be edting from a IPv6 address range for anyone with the temporary account viewer perm.TarnishedPathtalk23:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]
Comments: This is an inappropriate use of this page and is simply BRD, not 3RR. I'm being accused of edit warring because I undid one anonymous edit (may or may not be the same user who created this) after removing a large amount of inappropriate content from the Chalker High School page yesterday that was reverted. That is not edit warring. All edits made to the Chalker High School article have had thorough explanations included which cite relevant Wikipedia and Wikipedia Schools WikiProject policies, guidelines, and precedent. I also included a place on the article's talk page to discuss them and instead get a notice of edit warring, but no reply on the article talk page. --JonRidinger (talk)22:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs.Daniel Case (talk)02:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Comments: This user is using three different temporary accounts to engage in edit warring over the addition and removal of unsourced material, which I reported to the sockpuppet investigation board after multiple failed attempts to communicate via user talk pages. The investigation was closed but the admin who closed did confirm that they are all the same IP address. The three accounts are 1) ~2025-37843-14[105], 2)~2025-37748-37[106], and 3) ~2025-37785-83[107]. Other articles where the user has used multiple accounts to edit and failed to provide sources or engage in discussion areNothobranchius andNothobranchiidae. I apologize in advance if anything about my handling of the situation was not ideal, this is my first time reporting here.
Comments:Further discussion on my own talk page - it appears the editor is aware of the discussion on the article talk page, but does not wish to engage in accordance with the dispute resolution policy. I am going along with their wishes that I stay off their talk page, aside from posting the notice of this discussion as required by policy.Danners430tweaks made09:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
It looks like that other account was an LTA, blocked by @Sugar Tax - I had suspicions because it was a brand new account and the first thing they did was remove this report, but it does look like it was unrelated. In which case yes, nothing will be found. It was opened in good faith because there were suspicions, as you probably would do also if a new account reverted your reporting another user on a discussion page as their first act.Danners430tweaks made09:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
I also note you’re still not replying on the article talk page other than to complain about me pinging you… are you going to discuss this dispute as required by policy or not?Danners430tweaks made09:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
That sounds okay,LibStar, but if that edit is reverted again, you'll have to discuss on the article's talk page or disengage from the conflict. There won't be another warning before an edit warring block.~ ToBeFree (talk)21:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has never engaged on talk pages
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[117]
Comments: I've tried to communicate with this user for several days, with no response. Inthis edit to the article in question, the user stated in the edit summary "May I have some time to revise my information added and check my sources." That's the only comment from them.
Aside from a ton of style, spelling, formatting, spacing, and other errors, where the content is sourced at all, the sources are non-English, or largely things like blogs and Fiveable.
The content was also jumbled, cyclical, and contained many-times-redundant wording, such as stating over and over that this substance is found in thick skin. Overall, I did not feel that this user's contributions were vandalism, but were certainly not constructive, which is why I reverted them several times. I'm stepping away now so I don't 3RR myself.Jessicapierce (talk)19:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period ofone week from the page, since the user is a student editor. This will give them every incentive to use the talk page to resolve these issues.Daniel Case (talk)19:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
02:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC) "Fed up with Sitkah / M.Bitton clear coordination always the same two, likely canvassing they need a topic ban and for this article to be to not be made WP:Undue with excessive focus on a minor POV"
02:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC) "You never explain yourself, I have set it out very clearly this is a mil history article thats being pov pushed on. Cease."
This is the third time the users have worked in tandem, the first time is fine, the second is a coincidence, the third is suspicious and I am within my rights to note it. It is frankly laughable to try and gag me from saying anything about this.
I would suggest M.Bitton learns to tell the time 0:39 5 Dec is more than 24hours away from 2:06. 6th Dec
M.Bitton never pinged me on the discussion, and in previous discussions fails to elaborate often simply using vacuities such as "as per sources", no discussion is ever given, no questions answered. Just circular reasoning, "because I object". There is never textual analysis.
M.Bitton has a history of preventing information being added to articles, even with sources given, even when an argument is made. They fail to provide justification simply saying they object they never engage in discussion. They quote guidelines as if they are policy, they engage in twinkle abuse (not sufficiently explaining revisions).
My objection is on stronger grounds and, the claim that I refused to explain my actions my grounds are available on the talk page which M.Bitton clearly neglected to read beyond posting a comment without pinging me.
I dislike interacting with M.Bitton I have asked them repeatedly to leave my talk page alone they continue to harass me. They harassed me when I was new, he continues to do so.
I have found many wikipedians honest, forthright and generous I suggest M.Bitton moves this to a dispute resolution notice board and in the interim allow the page to stay in its stable state.LeChatiliers Pupper (talk)03:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
M.Bitton never pinged me on the discussiondiffs don't lie. The rest is just more assumption of bad faith and personal attacks.
And then being angry that nobody saw your edited message as they were on an old version of the page.
As for the ping I never got it, thank you for drawing my attention to it - I would draw your attention to the message above which I assume you have yet to read...LeChatiliers Pupper (talk)04:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Note:Their response (another personal attack) to me leaving the "Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion on their talk page". This was done after they commented above.M.Bitton (talk)04:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[123]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[124]
Comments: My second warning is bellow my first one, the editor deleted the first warning I let on their talk page and then when I went to add the second warning I brought back the fist one and put the second warning following the first one.
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 see you've reached an impasse on talk ... please take heed ofWP:QUO. And it would be good to get some other editors involved and move the discussion towards consensus.Daniel Case (talk)19:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Daniel Case, we should seriously consider removing that parameter from the template. Neither reports here nor edit warring are limited to 3RR violations, andPepGuardi's response to your message was to continue reverting 20 minutes later. Declining is fine for hundreds of possible reasons, but "no 3RR violation" shouldn't be one of them.~ ToBeFree (talk)20:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
There's no edit war when he was the one messing up the lead section, creating awards season narrative yet again.
Before trying to block me, take a closer look atThe Secret Agent talk page and his talk page, both of them are full of warnings and he is always attacking users. @OnoremMartineden83 (talk)21:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
You are absolutely edit warring. Your edits aren't exempt because of your interpretation of a "guideline." AndWP:BLANKING allows users to remove messages and warnings from their own talk page. You were also wrong to restore those. --Onorem (talk)21:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
I know very well how WP:BLANKING works, i reverted because he deleted comments (including mine) from ongoing discussions, hahaha.Martineden83 (talk)21:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
HiMartineden83, as a belated answer, you may like to have a look at the essayWP:DISCFAIL. It is perhaps the only essay I link to at all; most essays are not worth reading. This one is.
So what should have been done? Not another revert. You have linked some guidelines, but they don't permit edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive even if you are right. And even if the other user's behavior is disruptive too.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, sometimes i do get lost. I guess this will help.
Yeah, it's probably left over from the old days when we were stricter about it (after all, we still call the template{{AN3}}. At the very least we should have a 1RR variant.Daniel Case (talk)21:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[130]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[131]
Comments: I added this info some time ago. It was removed by TheLionHasSeen with the comment "Reading is fundamental. Covers more than those redundant, unimproved headings." When I noticed it I re-added the info not sure what their rationale was. It has since been removed 3 times on 6 Dec 2025 prior to discussion on talk page.Patapsco913 (talk)23:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Patapsco913, please have a look atWP:ONUS. As a rule of thumb, removal without discussion is fine, restoration without discussion is not. This doesn't justify edit warring from either side, though.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[138]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[139]
Comments: Anonymous IP keep reverting article to his edits with grammatical issues and clearly incorrect terms. I have tried discussing the issue on his own talk page, he replied with insults. After he repeated the reverts with a different anonymous account, I moved the discussion to the article talked page, where he has not replied. He continues reverting to his version without discussion.Fbergo (talk)11:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Slogan - "Mera Aadhaar, Meri Pehchaan." This slogan is actually in Hinglish (Hindi + English). It is neither in pure Hindi, nor in pure English. The appropriate translation with closest and nearby substitute words in pure English language would be "My UID, My Identity." If you have any better suggestion, provided that you are following global standards of nomenclature, standardisation and translation benchmarks, then you are welcome to throw it here. But keep your(Personal attack removed) with you. No one wants it you(Personal attack removed).
"UID" word is the most appropriate and closest translational / substitutional word of the Hindi-origin word "Aadhaar" in the language of English here in this context. Because this term "UID" is taken from the named statutory body - UIDAI. And also, this term "UID" stands for "Unique IDentification", which serves its purpose and use directly, leaving no ambiguity behind.
Note The unregistered editor's continued personal attacks are grounds in their own right for the user to beblocked, even if they don't engage in edit warring (which they have been). —C.Fred (talk)13:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of1 week. Note that the block was for disruptive editing rather than pure edit warring. —C.Fred (talk)13:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
This dispute is about the picture to use in the Shahnameh page infobox.
HistoryofIran preferred picWhat I added
I thought the below picture, which shows one of the most interesting scenes in the story, would be far better for the infobox than the previous picture. Users thanked me for my change.
Historyofiran disagreed.
I left a message on his talk page to explain my reasoning.
He reverted me 3 times (violating the 3RR rule) and then threatened ME with an ANI report if i did anything.
Hes editing his own talk page now to make his argument look more coherent.
He violated the 3RR. Hes telling me to get consensus. Other users in the shahnameh page thanked me. He did not. I left a talk page on his account. He told me he wouldnt read all that.
Help me out this is getting ridiculous and annoying.
Is that related to your current violation of wikipedia policy?
Yes, historyofiran, please go through and link every single instance of you specifically targeting me, waiting for me to lose my temper and say something that doesnt read right, and then frame me as if my edits were not entirely in good faith.
Yes historyofiran, ignore the point at hand completely, and say "Ill talk about things unrelated to this specific ANI report"
The point at hand:
I made a change, multiple users thanked me
ONLY YOU DISAGREED
Consensus is for you to establish. And even with that being the case, I left a message on your profile in good faith that anyone can read. You said not reading all that. You cant have it both waysGET CONSENSUS *tries to get consensus*NOT READING THATIdris Shirazi (talk)23:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
GET CONSENSUS *tries to get consensus* NOT READING THAT
Yes, I'm not interested in reading your rants[144], no one is, especially not after having already used several hours to explain Wiki policies to you, only to get ridiculed/attacked by you every time. And you've already been told several times thatWP:CONSENSUS is achieved in the talk page of an article (you were literally told this minutes ago too[145]). But again, you don't care.
More examples that you simply don't care about Wiki policies;
EXACTLY what I expected from you HistoryOfIran. Exactly what I expected from you, link completely out of context messages that make me look bad. But all it reveals is a pattern of you targeting me, me trying to be civil, then you ignoring or berating my attempts to be civil, and finally me losing my temper.
THOSE EDITS WERE ON MY OWN TALK PAGE. And this is EXACTLY what I expected from you. Absolutely NOTHING ADDRESSING your violations, only trying to point back and say "Look how bad faith Idris Shirazi is! Let me ignore the point at hand and frame him with out of context quotes!"
You can't say "no-one is" because I've had productive relationships with editors on here through talk pages and email, Ive only had a problem with you. So speak for yourself, and try addressing your violation about the 3RR instead of Ad hominem as alwaysIdris Shirazi (talk)00:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
The point at hand is that you reverted an edit 3 times that others agreed with, then demanded consensus from me, then berated my attempt to get consensus and threatened ME with ANI after YOU violated 3RR.
How about you stick to that point instead of trying to ad hominem and make my look bad with out of context quotes. Again, if anybody reads the edit history, they can see that my edits are in good faith. Your attempt to frame me as a bad faith editor will not work.Idris Shirazi (talk)00:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Idris Shirazi, you're running headfirst towards a wall. You're not helping your position with your argumentation and its style. You can stop here, say that youdisengage from the conflict and move on. Or end up blocked.~ ToBeFree (talk)00:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
End up blocked for what exactly lol
I spend hours after school making good faith edits and historyofiran does nothing but target me and im the one who should be blocked? for what exactly. i wont disengage because i am done being targeted by this guyIdris Shirazi (talk)00:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
I AM SORRY, but this is not fair and the picture i put IS the consensus, not his
It is finals week and i was already prioritizing wikipedia over school to my own detriment so i got pissed when this guy undoes all my good faith work, im sorry for the anger ill try to work on that honestly but i spend hours trying to make this a better website
The point is that i added a picture, multiple users thanked me, he disagreed, i tried to talk to him, he did not want to talk to me.Idris Shirazi (talk)00:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Idris Shirazi, I'm neither blaming you for others' behavior nor for your normally-commendable strong interest in Wikipedia. What I'm less happy about is that you have let these things influence your entire behavior, not just your article editing. You currently behave like a drunken choleric in a pub who's about to get dragged away by annoyed police officers.
For your and the Wikipedia community's interests, it would be best if you pause here.
I'm not saying you're wrong in this conflict. I'm not saying your image choice is worse or better.
I personally don't care about the image and I hope you can believe me when I say I really don't care which of these images is displayed. I never heard the word "Shahnameh" or seen either of the images before.
You may like to focus on the finals. I have zero authority over what you do off-Wikipedia; I can't tell you to do this. It's your life. But if Wikipedia affects it negatively, that should be avoided by pausing your Wikipedia editing for a while, and if Wikipedia is affected negatively, that pause may be required. That's the only thing I can decide about: Whether your editing is disruptive enough to justify a block. You thought this thread is aboutHistoryofIran's behavior. I see edit warring. I'm not saying their behavior is fine. But this discussion here has primarily become one whereyou demonstrated a hopefully temporary inability to edit calmly and helpfully. And I'd like to close it without action and let you decide yourself how much time you spend on Wikipedia next to the finals week. You can currently easily do so; please preserve this status.~ ToBeFree (talk)00:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
HistoryofIran, can you agree that the number of reverts you made in the article about theShahnameh was, while possibly enforcing a needed discussion, edit warring that should ideally have been avoided and wouldn't continue during the next 48 hours from your side even if someone else appeared and changed the image again?~ ToBeFree (talk)00:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Has been adding the same sentence to lead, for weeks, despite it already being there, a sentence later (in addition to a multitude of other dumb edits across various pages). Tried at ARV, but was told it's not vandalism (?). Idk what it is then, but warnings do nothing.Nswix (talk)18:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
My point is that his ranking is significant enough to be in the first leading sentence. I was told to cite a source, so I reedit again to say the source is already in the original paragraph. Then it was removed because someone said it's redundant as its already in the paragraph. So i reedit and listed just the ranking in the first sentence. Very unwelcoming~2025-31939-01 (talk)21:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
14:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "WP:ONUS: Everyone has expressed their opinion and i've made changes in accordance. We don't have to host an RFC, problem was solved consensus is clear.."
Repeated insertions of sections titled "Russophobia accusations" or similar into this eastern-European BLP.Warned usingTemplate:uw-ew byUser:Rsk6400 at 17:48 8 December 2025[147]. Persisted at 21:30 8 December. Much talk-page discussion, editor has still not gained consensus.NebY (talk)21:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
The other user have reverted your changes before the consensus was reached. I bring them back by implemeting a newer version that was discussed in the consensus before, since you don't participate in the discussion.Gigman (talk)22:00, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
You posted text which included previously reverted text and sourcing atTalk:Kaja Kallas at 20:32. No comments had been made by 21:30 when you inserted it into the article. It did not have consensus.NebY (talk)22:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
"invalid revert" – That's just nonsense. "in the middle of consensus process" – You kept reinstating your desired version without trying to get consensus. You keep using words like "consensus", but either you don't know what they mean, or you're deliberately distorting their meaning. —Chrisahn (talk)22:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
You have literally disrupted the consensus process by removing the edit (not even made by me) stating your own reason for that (again without a consensus)Gigman (talk)22:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
The "it's own section" and "Russophobia accusations" are different topics. If there was an edit (before you contested it), then it happened to be in the next version (where different topic was implemeted)
My warning was caused by their behaviour atRussophobia, where they restored (parts of) their preferred version after having been reverted by at least three users (myself among them). Since they justified one of their reverts with "concerns about neutrality"[148], I asked them twice to be more specific[149][150], but never got an answer matching my question,[151] so I don't see they were working towards a consensus.Rsk6400 (talk)07:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
You are wrong. Over there it's clearly visible that I encourage you to patricipate in the consensus, while you just ignore it at the time.
Several users have expressed concerns regarding the format and neutrality of the page, so I edited the first section to be more inline with the rules.
I could as well edit it by publishing changes of every single sentence individually, but instead I've combined all changes into a single edit.
Thus only necessary (mentioned) controversial section was removed until solved, with the rest of the my edits brought back (since there was no concern expressed regarding them at the time).Gigman (talk)09:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
I am filing this ANI only because another editor threatened to take this dispute to ANI; otherwise I would have continued attempting to resolve it through talk-page discussion.
I attempted to discuss my edits withUser:Skitash on theTalk:Umayyad Caliphate page. I have no issue with being reverted when an editor provides a policy-based explanation, and my edit history shows I routinely accept such feedback. In this case, however, my attempts at discussion were ignored. I was told my edits violated WP:RS, but when I provided reliable sources supporting the content, the editor continued reverting without meaningful engagement. The pattern appeared to involve WP:IDHT and WP:GAME.
After this dispute began, Skitash also started reverting unrelated edits I had previously made on the Abu Hanifa article. I had already been discussing those edits with another user, and although we disagreed, I attempted compromise wording and added attribution to reflect fringe views. Once Skitash entered that discussion, they repeatedly reverted without substantive talk-page engagement.
Across both articles, my attempts to discuss content were met with dismissive comments and accusations of POV-pushing rather than policy-based reasoning. I am bringing this here because the pattern now involves multiple pages, repeated reverts without adequate discussion, and escalating conduct concerns. I would like uninvolved administrators to review the situation and advise on next steps.
Blocked – for a period of24 hours, mostly for the edit warring over the article aboutAbu Hanifa, but sitewide as it wasn't limited to that page as demonstrated above.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
00:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC) "I appreciate your concern, however, these edits are correct. Undoing this results in an inaccurate webpage. If removing backgrounds from tables is desired, please make those edits independently. Thank you for your understanding."
23:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Addition of current team information and season history, cleaned up clerical errors, and made formatting more consistent throughout the page."
20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Addition of accurate content, NXT is due, and needed backgrounds to tables that need it."
The rename seems fine, all good. It's unlikely to be malicious and even if it was, that had no actual effect. Thanks for updating the report.~ ToBeFree (talk)02:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[164]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[165]
Comments:
Nafis Fuad Ayon andRfakjunkie have been edit warring over whether or not a letter of intent is sufficient reason to include an aircraft in the air force's equipment table. I've tried to stop them with a caution on the article talk page against edit-warring, and CTOPS alerts on both their user talk pages, to no avail. Both are experienced users who've had brushes with edit-warring enforcement before, so they should know better. --Worldbruce (talk)16:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
User is stubbornly insisting onWP:NONENG sources while removing more reliable English-language ones in violation ofWP:BLPRESTORE (once a good-faith objection was known) andWP:BLPSOURCES.
I don't really understand your determination to pursue tiresome tittle-tattling instead of actually contributing constructively. The fact is that I added content to the page, which you apparently believe you own, and you repeatedly edit warred by removing my contributions instead of behaving in a constructive manner as other users did by attempting to work together.
You are now reporting me for doing exactly what you did, i.e. edit warring by reverting repeatedly, which demonstrates absurd levels of chutzpah. Your pattern of behaviour of trying to justify every revert war you do with links to random policies is hostile and drives away casual users. I suggest you rethink your attitude.
I apologise for not noticing your belated article talk page message - the fact is that you had repeatedly blanked my content and told me to take it to the article talk page instead of doing so yourself, so I did not notice when you finally made one - I have now responded to it.Sumbuddi (talk)17:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Partially blocked – for a period of1 week for restoring contested content to a BLP without discussing first. –bradv17:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Comments: In addition to the above main two articles that have seen reverts, Trex473 also made substantially the same edit toNative American–Jewish relations inSpecial:Diff/1326755849. Despite explicit warnings to not engage in multi-page edit warring, they appear intent on reinstating their changes without waiting to form consensus for them. Responding admins may also want to review their short edit history to date and assess the likelihood that this is a sockpuppet and/orWP:NOTHERE account.signed,Rosguilltalk17:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
I gave specific reasons why the page should be changed. Nothing disproves the Book of Mormon events, and if you are not certain you should not enforce a certain view. I put up a discussion on the page talk like they told me to so that it could be discussed, but nothing was. Therefore, it seemed like they weren't enforcing their side and seemed like I could move on ahead. I'm sorry that I created an edit war, I didn't intend to do harm and I want to improve the pages.signed,Trex473talk18:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Comments: Jag1762010 is causing an edit war on theTwisted Metal page. They believe that Samoa Joe should be credited by his stage name. However he's credited as Joe Seanoa based on theMOS:TVCAST. They're about to break the 3-revert edit rule.Mxhyn16(talk)18:50, 12 December 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.
Hi! I already posted about this editor on ANI[177]with details of their persistent edit-warring behaviour onU.G. Krishnamurti. This has resulted in another discussion being opened regarding the proposed deletion of this article due to multiple issues, mainly lack of secondary sources, promotional tone, manual of style issues, and notability.[178] While this conversation is still ongoing, the editor has continued to revert edits for two days with no intention to build consensus on the talk page.Baberoothless (talk)11:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
On the contrary, I continued to explain my issues (seeTalk:U. G. Krishnamurti#"Spiritual figure") with the repeated replacement of sourced info with unsourced info by this editor: 10:26diff, 12:24diff, not to mention the same removal two days before in a mass-revertdiff. Note especially the first of these two reverts, edit-summaryNo consensus has been reached on the talk without subsequent explanation or engagement at the talkpage, until my response to this revert at the talkpagediff (11:48). The repeated replacement of sourced info with unsourced text is ironic, given their mention ofmultiple issues, mainly lack of secondary sources.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!12:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Issues related to their “source” have been raised and explained multiple times on the talk page.[179][180] And by another editor (diff). Editor has decided that my descriptor is “vague” and unsourced even after I showed them that the subject’s own books contain the descriptor I have used (diff). Please also note that apart from shoehorning this “source”, the editor’s initial reverts insisting that the subject is a philosopher, and then orator and then public speaker–completely unsourced. Editor has also reverted other edits where unsourced text was removed under the “publications” section. Editor also has refused to engage with any suggestions about the page not adhering to manual of style, claiming that one of the headings being “no teaching” is totally appropriate. Diffs for all of these instances have been documented in my post at ANI.
Since the deleting discussion was opened, other editors have also raised issues related to the notability of the subject, and questionable resources. The editor has decided that reverting my edits constantly and refusing to engage with the suggestions made on the talk page is the correct approach instead. Considering that I’ve already addressed their concerns repeatedly on the talk page, I’m not sure what more can I add that isn’t me repeating my earlier arguments while the editor continues to disregard them as a vague.Baberoothless (talk)12:30, 12 December 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.
Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring to make unsourced changes. User does not seem to understand Wikipedia's referencing standards. He apparentlyintends to continue reverting.EdJohnston (talk)03:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely~ ToBeFree (talk)18:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Page protected already~ ToBeFree (talk)19:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
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)
Already blocked~ ToBeFree (talk)21:21, 27 November 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.Daniel Case (talk)02:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Warned~ ToBeFree (talk)21:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Note:Their response (another personal attack) to me leaving the "Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion on their talk page". This was done after they commented above.M.Bitton (talk)04:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC).jpg)
